After graduating from medical school, Salomat had to settle for working as a masseuse at a Dushanbe beauty salon because hospitals in Tajikistan don’t allow the Islamic hijab, which she wears.
“I had to choose between my career and my faith, and I chose the latter,” says Salomat, who didn’t want to give her full name. “I did remove my hijab in college because I thought that was temporary. But a career is for life.”
Thousands of women in Tajikistan have faced similar choices in recent years as the staunchly secular government in Dushanbe has been increasingly cracking down on the Islamic head scarf at schools and workplaces.
Despite the effective ban on the hijab in public institutions, there is no legislation in Tajikistan that outlaws Islamic attire. But that is about to change.
Parliament in the predominantly Muslim nation of some 10 million has adopted draft amendments to the law on “traditions and celebrations” that will ban the wearing, importing, selling, and advertising of “clothes alien to Tajik culture,” a term widely used by officials to describe Islamic clothing.
Several Dushanbe residents told RFE/RL that they don’t support a ban on certain types of clothes because they believe people should be free to choose what clothes they want to wear.
“It’s important to have the freedom to choose our own clothes. There shouldn’t be a law ordering us what to wear,” said Munira Shahidi, an expert on art and culture.
Most Tajiks believe the new amendments would only legalize a “ban that has already been in place for years.”
I’m honestly not a fan of the government deciding which version of a religion is correct, and I’m even less into the gov enforcing targeted dress codes. It seems super authoritarian to me and I can’t really see how it could be a good thing.
I’d consider myself anti-theist but still, I don’t see how you can live in a free society and let the government have that power
That said, I’m open to learning how this could be a positive/negative and whether or not it would create a group of second class citizens.
As a non-participating* Baha’i, I still agree.
I can understand the potential ban against the hijab in governmental, scholarly, and other public places, but only because of how the Shia, and to a lesser extent the Sufi, attempt to enforce those laws, and the absolute fact that religion and politics have no place in the same arena.
Since it is Sunni that are creating and enforcing progressive laws, who am I to disagree? I can only mourn the needless violence and suffering that may occur amongst my cousins.
Dont get me wrong, Tajikistan is a capital D dictatorship. With pictures of the president on every public building and daily propaganda prodcasts from megaphones installed at public squares. Its also not the first time the government banned certain traditions (such as a way to celebrate weddings).
They are banning the symptom instead of the cause. Instead of banning preachers of foreign schools of Islam they are banning something that is central to those preachings.
I agree, banning religious expression is generally a bad thing, I am just happy they are fighting to keep radical Islam out of the country. For reference, Tajiks are the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan (~25% of the population) so there is bound to be cultural exchange between the countries. a And Tajikistan is very afraid of the Taliban getting any support in Tajikistan. And the first step of that support is through religious radicalization.
My main disagreement with this decision is the same reason I disagree with countries that strictly enforce wearing hijabs.
Whether or not a person chooses to wear a hijab, or a burka, or khakis, or a swimsuit, or nothing at all is a personal decision. It’s the part where they choose that’s important.
It’s certainly arguable whether social or cultural or religious norms can remove the ability to choose without any legal action whatsoever, but I don’t think that justifies this kind of action and I don’t think this law will result in any sort of liberation. Historically speaking this direction tends to result more in reactionary radicalization.