the local controversy over ethnic-based mosques runs counter to the way things usually play out in the middle east. in the middle east, political islam is often a force for cross-ethnic unity, whereas ethnic-nationalism tends to be championed by secularists. for example, in syria, the islamists forces tend to be sunni whereas the secular/arab nationalist baathists are led by the alawite al-asad family. that's because the religious majority in syria is sunni. in contrast, in iraq, the majority is shia, which is why in prior to the 2003 american invasion the arab nationalists/baathists were dominated by sunnis and christians, while the islamists in that country were mostly shia.
in kazakhstan, that pattern doesn't seem to apply. i wonder if it is because of the relative religious freedom here, coupled with the kazakhstani government's strong stance against ethnic nationalism. the mosque may be one of the few places where nationalistic sentiment is free to come out. the fight over what language the imam delivers the sermon may be viewed as a proxy fight reflecting the ethnic frustrations that are otherwise stifled.
