That depends on what you call a “true Muslim”. Nawruz is indeed haram in Wahhabism, Salafism and similar currents but these do not have the monopoly over Islam.

One of Hanafi Sunnism’s characteristics is, that pre-Islamic elements can be integrated in Islam if they support the propagation of Islam. In that respect, I find Nawruz to be much more meaningful than the Western/Soviet new year which is merely a technical/calendar day with no further meaning than a pretext for boozing and gluttony.

Nawruz is the beginning of spring, of new life in nature, Allah’s creation. Only too bad that it has been sanitised by kafir and munafiq regimes.

“Spelling advices: etc…”

Thanks for the advice but I use Nawruz anyway. It is not an exclusively Uzbek celebration and the name’s origins are Farsi (as you know naw=new, ruz=day) where the ’soft w’ definitely exists.

“insha’Allah”, “kafir” etc. are transscriptions from international Islamic parlance, whereas “inshoolloh”, “kofir”, “Islom”, “Alloh” are ‘ubekifications’ of it. Using them in comments that are not written in the Uzbek language is artifical, even ludicrous.

Yes. This is why I was always opposed to an Islamic *state* but do advocate a *social Islam*.

The overthrow of the Karimovites will be violent. There will be fighting, lootings, score settlings. People will be killed. It will be something like Romania in late 1989. There is no way that they will go peacefully. The violence will have nothing to do with Islam or Wahhabi/Salafi agitation. First, objectively, justice must be done. There is no way that the Karimovites can get off scott-free for their crimes.

Second, among the Uzbek people there is too much cropped-up hatred and frustration which were not caused by Islam but by the regime and its external supporters. Third, the Karimovites (who are cowards when push comes to shove) will certainly use the “scorched-earth tactic”, shoot civilian demonstrators (as they already did in Andijan) or/and take civilians as human shields once they see that their end is near.

“However, a person who abstains from drinking alcohol when it is available has shown their devotion to their faith, while a person who cannot drink alcohol simply because it is unavailable or prohibited has shown nothing.”

That latter is true. Then what about people who are forced to drink (a common practice in Uzb and other parts of Turkestan) otherwise they are branded as ‘Wahhabis’ and what all? Have they shown their devotion to “secularism”.

Nawruz mobarak, btw! May the coming year insha’Allah bring the end of the dark Kafirov regime.

I also think it could be dangerous for Islam, depending on how far you’d wish to take it. For instance, if you have a revolution guided by Islam it could severely tarnish the faith. Revolutions are almost always messy, and more often than not people on both sides end up doing horrible things. Someone goes to far, get too zealous, and sometimes ends up killing a bunch of people that they shouldn’t have. Now if the revolution is guided by religion, then those horrible acts end up making the whole faith look bad.

I understand that many Central Asians are searching for and identity that was suppressed under Soviet and then Karimov rule, but also keep in mind that there’s much in their own cultural identity that they should be proud of - their extreme hospitality for one.

Lastly, I understand that drinking alcohol is haram (although great Sufi poets such as Omar Khayyam and Rumi discuss it, and alcohol was part of Central Asian culture even before the Soviets). However, a person who abstains from drinking alcohol when it is available has shown their devotion to their faith, while a person who cannot drink alcohol simply because it is unavailable or prohibited has shown nothing.

“Plus, you got to remember that there are both Jews, Christians and Shia Muslims in Uzbekistan, all of whom are citizens.”

I don’t see why Shiites should be excluded but you’re probaly thinking about Iraq. That does not play here. Both Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Uzbekistan suffer under the Kafirov regime.

As for Jews and Christians: first, they’re not so numerous and dwindling (so why should the agenda be set in function of them in the first place); second, they are Ahl’-al-Kitap, people of the book. They are indeed citizens, they and their skills are welcome and there is a place and role for them in the new, post-Kafirov Uzbekistan PROVIDED they have not collaborated with the regime against the Muslims and that they are not stooges of neocon evangelist sects from the US and South Korea.