[OutOfHere]

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 aggression in check, constituted of its neighbors.

[rvense]

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.

[slt2021]

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 and enabled by Gulf monarchies.

If there is another big war in the Middle East - guess from where all the islamist volunteer fighters will be coming from - from these poor 3rd world islamist countries, the *stan countries

[aprilthird2021]

> 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?

[slt2021]

i lived there, gulf monarchies are financing construction of mosques all over the *stans, and are sending people to "study islam" in ... Pakistan and Bangladesh, where they are radicalized and brainwashed.

various conflicts in Causasus in russia - where caucasians were bankrolled and brainwashed via gulf money (dagestan and chechnya)

[aprilthird2021]

Are you replying to the wrong comment? I asked for one example where an open political system led to radical Islamists cementing power

[slt2021]

Afghanistan was relatively open during US and USSR occupations, still radical islamists prevailed.

Iran during Shah times was relatively open politically, although it was monarchy.

Egypt before the brotherhood took over.

Turkey was relatively sectarian, but with Erdogan it became more and more islamist.

Iraq after occupation was relatively open, yet ISIS ideology took off

[protomolecule]

Russia. [0]

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

[admissionsguy]

Egypt before the latest coup?

[aprilthird2021]

Egypt had been a brutal autocracy for years which led to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and just when democracy finally peaked its head out, bam, back to brutal military dictatorship.

You may not believe in democracy, but I do. Democracies lead to progress in nations and balance in political systems around the world. Closed political systems lead to the rise of revolutionaries and in the Muslim world those are Islamic and often extreme

[cyberax]

> Tajikistan looks to be an interesting case of Islam being kept in check

"In check" in this case means a 7-year civil war that ended up with 1% of the country _dead_ and around 15% of the population displaced.

[aprilthird2021]

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?

[adhamsalama]

Democratic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood?

Care to explain that one more?

[aprilthird2021]

They are the only party to have ever fielded a democratically elected leader in all of their home country of Egypt.

[ffgjgf1]

They want to democratically abolish democracy. What’s undemocratic about that?

[pythonguython]

All of the central Asian “stan” countries have a Muslim majority and Tajikistan is actually the most extreme of them. But Kazakhstan, kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Turkey and Iran are all examples of islam without extremism (although Iran has fundamentalism)

[lye]

Kazakhstan has a problem with Islamic extremists and the government is very much worried about it and spends a lot of money fighting it. They put cameras in every mosque, for example, and work their people into every religious group of any significance.

There's not much info on it in English, but here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Aktobe_bombing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Aktobe_shootings

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Контртеррористическая_операция...

[pythonguython]

It’s certainly on the governments radar, and they do have an interest in preventing it. Kazakhstan banned hijab in schools and engages in anti terrorism like you mentioned. But overall, the country has a large secular population (due to the Soviet Union) and the country practices a moderate form of Islam called Sufism. I would attribute this to their nomadic culture, which meant the Quran was more of an oral tradition for Kazakhs in the past. The difference between Kazakhstan and Tajikstan is that you can actually find daesh cells in the pamir valley of Tajikistan, while that’s not really a thing in Kazakhstan. Extremism in KZ has manifested as a few isolated attacks and a small amount of individuals who chose to travel to fight in the Syrian war. I spent 9 months in KZ last year and - visited mosques, talked to many locals in various cities and feel comfortable saying that Islamic extremism is rare there.

[_DeadFred_]

When your police are free to abuse girls all the way up to abusing them to death for not wearing hats like Iran is, I'm pretty sure that's extremism.

[pythonguython]

And in the early 20th century pahlavi’s regime beat women who chose to keep wearing the hijab. Religious extremism in the form of salafi Wahhabism isn’t common in the country, nor is militant jihad. It’s theocratic authoritarianism. I think the difference is worth noting.

[ffgjgf1]

> extremism in the form of salafi Wahhabism isn’t common in the country

It’s not like the SA government (as a whole) was ever particularly that keen about the extremism part. Fundamentally they are not that different from Iran in most ways. They started from very different positions of course (secularism never having been a thing in the Arabian peninsula). SA is at least kind of moving into the right direction in some areas when it comes to women’s rights (even if at an extremely slow pace).

> It’s theocratic authoritarianism

Probably closer to theocratic totalitarianism..

[_DeadFred_]

You first example is irrelevant.

Not sure why you want to label what to me is a distinction without a difference. You care about the motivations of a few at the top, I care about the local police and their supporters, which are acting like religious extremists not authoritarians.

[pythonguython]

The purpose of my example was to demonstrate that oppression of women in Iran is a form of political control because it happens under secular and religious regimes, sorry I don’t think I expressed that clearly enough. I don’t consider Iran religiously extremist for multiple reasons. The populace practices such a moderate form of Islam. The country doesn’t export radicalized people. The government has some degree of tolerance for other religions (as long as you’re not a convert from Islam). The government acts in the name of religion, but in my opinion is guided by power and control rather than ideology.

In comparison, Islamic extremists do things like kill infidels and seek to establish an Islamic caliphate.

[alephnerd]

> Tajikistan looks to be an interesting case of Islam being kept in check without resorting to either sharia or terrorism.

Because it's done through extreme human rights violations such as torture, kidnapping, kangaroo courts, etc [0].

This only radicalizes the Jihadist movements, who's hardcore believers went into exile Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chechnya, Syria, etc and became extremely prominent in the Islamic State movement (eg. The former head of Tajikistan's Spetznaz defected to ISIS back in 2015 and became their War Minister).

ISKP is extremely Tajik in leadership, and this has helped them commit mass casualty attacks like the Kerman Bombings and the Moscow Theatre Siege

Once Emomali Rahmon dies, the Civil War will restart.

> 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 aggression in check, constituted of its neighbors.

Countries like India have had Air Force bases and boots on the ground in Tajikistan for decades [1]

---------

If in San Francisco or New York, I recommend checking out Halal Dastarkhan or Farida's, Tandir Rokhat (Bukharan Jewish), Aziza 7, and Salute (Bukharan Jewish) respectively.

The owners are all ethnic Tajiks from Uzbekistan. Bukhara is ethnic Tajik but in Uzbekistan because Stalin.

[0] - https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/tajik...

[1] - https://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060422/main6.htm

[slt2021]

really tough choice for a government: violate human rights of opposition or descend into ISIS/afghon

[alephnerd]

I disagree - the best solution to minimizing radicalism would have been raising living standards and allowing civil society and institutions to form, yet it's the same Soviet apparatchiks who continue to tenuously hang on to power to this day.

By preventing civil society from forming, perpetuating the same autarkic and autocratic economic and political system that has been in place since the 1980s, and failing to raise living standards these leaders exacerbated Jihadist movements, as they were the only semi-organized opposition left.

And banning minors from attending any religious service except funerals, de facto banning the Hijab, and using unrestrained violence in the face of even the smallest protests is not a lasting solution to preventing radicalism.

None of the wounds from the civil war were actually rectified, and it will bubble over into a second civil war once Rahmon dies.

It's the same story in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkemenistan, and Kazakhstan (eg. The riots in 2021).

This is the exact same playbook that happened in Afghanistan 50 years ago - living standards were trash, inequality was high, and any opposition was violently removed.

It didn't matter if it was Zahir Shah, Taraki, Massoud, or Omar - they were all authoritarian criminals who prevented civil society and institutions from forming.

[ffgjgf1]

> allowing civil society and institutions to form

To be fair if they tried that Islamists would have just taken over. Those things don’t tend to just form on their own when you let people do whatever they want without supervision (you need very specific conditions).

The most effective path for countries in similar positions is probably balanced authoritarianism + focus on education and economic growth and then starting to introduce democracy and other civil rights gradually after a generation or two. Pretty hard to pull off, though (especially in the Muslim world).

[alephnerd]

Living standards (based on HDI, life expectancy, literacy rate, and other development indicators) in Tajikistan are still approximately at the same level as they were when Tajikistan was the poorest member of the Soviet Union 30 years ago.

Stagnant living standards over 30 years and repression is all Rahmon has to show. This is why radicalism grows. If Rahmon raised living standards similar to peers like Uzbekistan (who also neighbors Afghanistan and also has a major issue with Afghan Uzbeks supporting the Taliban, and who are equally as repressive such as the Andijan Massacre) then Tajikistan wouldn't be in the mess that it is in today.

[geoka9]

I think there's more danger of bleeding territory to the Taliban, at least it has been the case until recently. Especially if Russia (who has had a big military base there forever) becomes irrelevant.

[wavefunction]

The article mentions that China has a military base in the east of Tajikistan and touches on Chinese attitudes towards islam and their behavior internally (in Xinjiang for example) and externally in Tajikistan. Russia appears to be unable to prosecute their own defense let alone the defense of "allies" as Armenia found out.

[jajko]

Russia has no allies. Every single 'compatible' nation ran the hell away from them as soon as it become marginally possible in late 80s, and in typical russian victim fashion west and US specifically is to blame.

Just look at what they are doing to their supposed brothers in Ukraine, for one old man's greed and twisted view on reality and his legacy, 0 other reasons. This is how they treat everybody, including other russians.

What they have are temporarily aligned forces who see some benefit in such action, nothing more. Most of them would take over russian territory and its mineral riches without blinking an eye if they could.

[foverzar]

> 0 other reasons

Well this is just sad propaganda. Zelensky (and others) had publicly admitted to sabotaging deescalation agreements.

You don't want to fall for "nothing happened in Donbas before 22" bs.

It is really such a weird situation. Western and Ukrainian politicians had publicly stated they were actually going for a fight for a long time, but we still see people doing wired moral posturing.

[hot_gril]

Russia was probably able to defend Armenia, but they didn't want to. They sold weapons to the other side of the 2021-2023 war, Azerbaijan.

[foverzar]

Even Armenia didn't want to defend Armenia, making sure that it is explicitly legally and politically "definitely-not-Armenia" that needs defense.

[hot_gril]

I was referring to the incursions into Armenia proper, not the breakaway region in 2020.

[ashilfarahmand]

I think they were on high alert up until recently and are now in the process of trying to figure out how to get along with them. On the border areas, there were a handful of markets in the mountain villages where they allowed Afghans to cross the border to sell products. These markets were shut down once the Taliban took over but have recently been re-opened.

[aenopix]

They are exremist, they banned Eid celebrations, they banned the Hijab....

[throwaway2037]

The blog post specifically mentions that about 90% of countryside women wear the hijab. I am confused by your comment.

[mkoubaa]

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

[meowtimemania]

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.

[mda]

The thing described is far from separation of church. It is straight out oppression.

[ffgjgf1]

What other options are there though when the other side has zero interest in secularism and will do whatever they can to institute a theocratic government when given the opportunity?

Some (most?) forms of Islam are just not compatible with western style democracy and secularism. It’s unfortunate but I don’t really see any other realistic options of solving this besides “oppression”.

Some countries like Jordan kind of partially pulled it off but they had very specific conditions which can’t really be replicated elsewhere.

[mkoubaa]

Some Islamic countries are family businesses that have international recognition as states for historical and geopolitical reasons. I don't take the actions of those countries seriously

[aprilthird2021]

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

[inglor_cz]

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 definitely be kept in check, unless the country in question is willing to regress into some very dark ages. That is something that Ataturk understood very well when reforming Turkey.

[pseingatl]

Hand amputations for theft are not automatic, even in Saudi Arabia. Even pickpockets preying on pilgrims in the Prophet's Mosque do not automatically suffer the penalty.

However, many believe that this is the case. The erroneous belief does tend to keep crime down.

[mkoubaa]

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

[inglor_cz]

"A secular state need not suppress Islam"

What about a secular state that doesn't want to become an Islamic state, but has a significant minority that has the opposite wish?

AFAIK this is the most important common political problem across the Islamic world. Many organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood want to Islamize their respective secular countries, some by peaceful means, others by violence. There has already been at least a dozen civil wars around that issue.

[mkoubaa]

A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is. It must also suppress violent sedition with violence. Expressing that responsibility as suppressing religion per se is counterproductive

[feoren]

> A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is

No. A tolerant, secular, liberal state should not respect the will of its people if the will of (the majority of) its people is to become an intolerant, religious, oppressive state. It is OK -- possibly even necessary -- to have a set of core founding principals which must never be abandoned.

[ffgjgf1]

So democratically abolishing democracy?

> respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is

How do you define that? Is it always what the majority decides? What if the liberal secular government knows that going along with the will of the people will result in a minority of the population losing most of their rights and potentially suffering extreme oppression?

One could could assume that after learning what happened in Germany in the 30s (and some other comparable situations) most people would agree that even liberal states need to draw a line at some point.

[JumpCrisscross]

> liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is

This is majoritarianism. Not liberalism, and certainly not democracy.

[surfingdino]

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...

[mkoubaa]

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.

[surfingdino]

There should be a principle that secular law of the country overrides religious laws if the outcome is less favourable for the affected.

[ffgjgf1]

Not really? Islamists in secular Muslim states are trying to overturn the secular legal all the time (and have succeeded on numerous occasions). Often they end up compromising and end up with a mixed system which is also far from ideal.

[petre]

> But quite a lot of people care if you want to introduce hand amputations for theft, as demanded by Sharia Law

Probably why Salafism is outright banned in Tajikistan.

[aprilthird2021]

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

[hagbard_c]

Islam does have a specific problem in this regard since its scripture explicitly calls for violent struggle to spread it over the world. Ignoring this fact does not make the problem go away and only serves to undercut those who attempt to start an 'islamic enlightenment'.

[oa335]

> Islam does have a specific problem in this regard since its scripture explicitly calls for violent struggle to spread it over the world.

Which part of the scripture?

Every part of the Quran that involves violence has consistently been understood to apply to a specific context, by almost all classical Islamic theologians and jurists.

That’s why extremist groups rarely cite Quran for justifying perma-war, instead citing opinions of Islamic scholars instead.

[hagbard_c]

> Every part of the Quran that involves violence has consistently been understood to apply to a specific context, by almost all classical Islamic theologians and jurists.

That fully depends on which interpretations you follow. Islam not having a central authority means there is no 'central source' for how to interpret the scripture - Quran but also Hadith and Sunnah - and with that those who are set on taking what is written as the direct and unchanging word from God can claim to have as much justification (or, as they claim, more justification) as those who want to interpret scripture in a more 'modern' fashion.

Here's a sample of Quranic passages which call for muslims to 'fight unbelievers' which are followed to the letter by those who adhere to the literal interpretation of the texts:

https://quran.com/2?startingVerse=190: Fight in the cause of Allah ˹only˺ against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.

https://quran.com/2?startingVerse=191: Kill them wherever you come upon them and drive them out of the places from which they have driven you out. For persecution is far worse than killing. And do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they attack you there. If they do so, then fight them—that is the reward of the disbelievers.

Those who follow the literal interpretation of the texts see 'those who wage war against you' as all 'unbelievers' - those who live in the 'dar al-harb' (land(s) of strife or war) in contrast to those who live in 'dar al-islam' (land(s) under islamic law), especially those who live in places which have been conquered 'for islam' before but taken back later - e.g. 'Al-Andalus', better known as Spain. The main 'problem' in the interpretation of these lines is what is meant by 'those who wage war against you' as this can be interpreted as 'those who refuse to accept islam' in the context of the texts.

https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=74: Let those who would sacrifice this life for the Hereafter fight in the cause of Allah. And whoever fights in Allah’s cause—whether they achieve martyrdom or victory—We will honour them with a great reward.

https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=88: Why are you ˹believers˺ divided into two groups regarding the hypocrites while Allah allowed them to regress ˹to disbelief˺ because of their misdeeds? Do you wish to guide those left by Allah to stray? And whoever Allah leaves to stray, you will never find for them a way.

https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=89: They wish you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you may all be alike. So do not take them as allies unless they emigrate in the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as allies or helpers,

https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=90: except those who are allies of a people you are bound with in a treaty or those wholeheartedly opposed to fighting either you or their own people. If Allah had willed, He would have empowered them to fight you. So if they refrain from fighting you and offer you peace, then Allah does not permit you to harm them.

https://quran.com/4?startingVerse=91: You will find others who wish to be safe from you and their own people. Yet they cannot resist the temptation ˹of disbelief or hostility˺. If they do not keep away, offer you peace, or refrain from attacking you, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them. We have given you full permission over such people.

These lines can be interpreted as calling for offensive actions against 'unbelievers' - and here it is important to know what the Quran says about its predecessor religions:

https://quran.com/3?startingVerse=65: O People of the Book! Why do you argue about Abraham, while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until long after him? Do you not understand?

https://quran.com/3?startingVerse=66: Here you are! You disputed about what you have ˹little˺ knowledge of, but why do you now argue about what you have no knowledge of? Allah knows and you do not know.

https://quran.com/3?startingVerse=67: Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian; he submitted in all uprightness and was not a polytheist.

According to islamic doctrine the 'people of the book' were given the 'true word of God' but strayed from the path. Christians, i.e. those who believe in the 'holy trinity' of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - are 'polytheists' since they worship others besides Allah. Taken together these lines are interpreted as cause to fight 'unbelievers'. This is explained in more detail in chapter 'O' (Justice) of 'The Reliance of the Traveller' [1] in the section on jihad:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada , signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad,

“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);

(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);

(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah";

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

There are many more such passages which can be and are interpreted in many ways so as to fit the purposes of those who lead others. It is the absence of a 'true and leading interpretation' which disavows war and conquest in the name of islam which gives rise to islam's specific problems when it comes to violence.

Read the Quran, 'Reliance of the Traveller' (the classical manual on shariah law) and the Sunnah and you'll understand just how open these texts are to interpretation. It is also illustrative to have a look at the history of islam and islamic countries.

[1] https://archive.org/details/relianceofthetravellertheclassic...

[aprilthird2021]

No it doesn't. I'm Muslim. Like most monotheistic religions, it actually says that most people will become irreligious before the end of time

[hagbard_c]

Your school and branch of islam don't, that does not mean all schools and branches don't. Most churches don't claim "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" but the Westboro baptist church does.

[aprilthird2021]

Islam isn't really like that. There are only 4 schools (not 1000 different churches) and they mostly disagree about minor things.

There's pretty broad consensus about the fact that the end times will be preceded by a huge drop in religiosity and rise in sinfulness. Here's just one example: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/78329/signs-of-the-day-of-ju...

And here's the source it's from: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:80

It's pretty cut and dry

Feel free to look up signs of judgment day, it's pretty heavily agreed upon

[hagbard_c]

In what way is this related to the fact that islamic scripture is open to interpretation due to the absence of a 'central authority' or 'leading interpretation' which denounces or abrogates the violent passages in scripture? Islamic eschatology is often used as a source by those who are intent on leading their adherents to violence:

https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:1820 : The Messenger of Allah said, "The Last Hour will not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews, until a Jew will hide himself behind a stone or a tree, and the stone or the tree will say: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him,' but Al-Gharqad tree will not say so, for it is the tree of the Jews."

https://sunnah.com/muslim:2922 : The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2925 : Allah's Messenger said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews until some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O `Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.'"

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2926 : Allah's Messenger said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Da'esh used these Hadith (among others) as justification for their actions because they were intent on bringing about the end of history by instigating the final battle at Dabeq (close to Aleppo) where islam will prevail over the unbelievers.

[mkoubaa]

Actually it doesn't call for that

[hagbard_c]

What does 'it' refer to here? Which islamic school and what branch of that school? Some do call for violence, others don't.

[g8oz]

You didn't seem to be concerned about school and branches when you made your blanket assertion above.

[mkoubaa]

The scripture, as such, does not. Interpretations of it may.

[hagbard_c]

Is there anything else besides interpretation of scripture? If so, what? I gave a few examples in this thread of passages which can be interpreted - and in some cases are actually hard not to interpret - as calls to violence in the name of islam. What is your basis for claiming these are not actually such?

Again, denying the problem exists does not make it go away and actually makes it harder for those who wish to reform islam.

[adhamsalama]

What do you mean by Islamic school and branches?

[protomolecule]

You are confusing the cause and the effect.

[mkoubaa]

This is a common take. I respect it but find it entirely unconvincing

[protomolecule]

I find your take extremely naive.

[mkoubaa]

I sometimes even have faith in democracy, believe it or not.

[protomolecule]

Have you heard of Christian extremists in the USSR which is known for suppressing religion? Exactly.

Likewise Islam in Tatarstan is completely benign.

[jl6]

“Suppressed” would be more extremism. “Kept in check”? Yeah, that’s probably a good treatment for any religion.

[mkoubaa]

Keeping religions in check as such is incompatible with liberalism. Secular societies need to be maintained, but antagonizing religious people with phrases like that is not how.

[stef25]

Make sure to use right words so they don't have a meltdown, like toddlers.

[mkoubaa]

It is important for government actions to be communicated clearly

[surfingdino]

On the flip side, religions are incompatible with liberalism so there's constant tension.

[mkoubaa]

The bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom

[quickthrowman]

Religious freedom is fine.

What bothers me is religious groups or people attempting to legislate their morality onto the whole of society by restricting personal freedoms.

If they would just follow their own morals and ethics and leave the rest of society alone, I’m perfectly fine with that.

For example, if you don’t believe in abortion, then don’t get an abortion. Leave people who want to get abortions alone, it’s their choice.

[lmm]

Which organised Islam is inimical to. E.g. the penalty for apostasy is death.

[feoren]

And the bedrock of religion is forcing your beliefs upon others. Hence the tension. It's like the paradox of tolerance.

[surfingdino]

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

[JumpCrisscross]

> the bedrock of liberalism is religious freedom

Individualism, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, private property and equality before the law are the bedrocks of liberalism [1]. Religious freedom is closer to a corollary, though hard secular liberal republics (e.g. much of recent French history) have also existed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism