[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.