International Criticism Of Afghan Blasphemy Prosecutions
1. Overview: International Criticism of Afghan Blasphemy Prosecutions
Afghanistan’s blasphemy prosecutions — under both the pre-Taliban Penal Code (2004) and the current Taliban regime — have been widely criticized by international organizations such as the United Nations (UN), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.
Key criticisms include:
Violation of freedom of expression and religion (Article 18 and 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).
Absence of fair trial guarantees.
Misuse of blasphemy charges to suppress dissent, journalists, and reformists.
Cruel and inhuman punishments such as execution or long-term imprisonment.
2. Case 1: The Case of Abdul Rahman (2006)
Background:
Abdul Rahman, an Afghan citizen, converted from Islam to Christianity after working in Italy. In 2006, he was arrested and charged with apostasy and blasphemy, both punishable by death under Afghanistan’s interpretation of Sharia.
Court Proceedings:
Rahman was tried in Kabul. Prosecutors argued that his conversion “insulted Islam.” The defense argued that Afghanistan’s constitution also guaranteed human rights and freedom of belief under Article 7.
Outcome:
Following intense international pressure — particularly from the European Union, the Vatican, and the United States — the Afghan government declared Rahman mentally unfit to stand trial and released him. He fled to Italy and was granted asylum.
International Reaction:
The UN Human Rights Council condemned the arrest as a violation of freedom of conscience.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch called it evidence that Afghan courts were prioritizing religious orthodoxy over international obligations.
3. Case 2: The Case of Farkhunda Malikzada (2015)
Background:
Farkhunda, a 27-year-old Afghan woman, was accused by a street vendor in Kabul of burning a Qur’an. Without trial, a mob brutally murdered her in public, beating and burning her body.
Court Proceedings:
Initial police reports supported the blasphemy accusation, but later investigations proved she had not committed blasphemy — she had merely objected to superstition and corruption at a shrine.
Outcome:
Some attackers were convicted but later received reduced sentences.
International Criticism:
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) called the incident “a symbol of systemic injustice against women.”
Global media and feminist groups condemned the Afghan judiciary’s initial failure to protect her rights.
The U.S. State Department stated that the killing demonstrated the “dangerous misuse of blasphemy laws.”
4. Case 3: The Case of Kambakhsh (2007–2009)
Background:
Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, a 23-year-old journalism student, downloaded an online article critical of Islam’s treatment of women. He was arrested in 2007 and charged with blasphemy for “insulting Islam.”
Court Proceedings:
A local court in Balkh province sentenced him to death. The sentence sparked international outrage and protests from global media and academic organizations.
Outcome:
His sentence was commuted to 20 years imprisonment, then eventually pardoned by President Karzai in 2009 due to international diplomatic pressure from the European Parliament and UNESCO.
International Reaction:
Reporters Without Borders labeled the trial as an “attack on freedom of the press.”
UNESCO declared the case “an example of intimidation against critical thinkers in Muslim societies.”
5. Case 4: The Case of Najeebullah Musafir (2013)
Background:
A freelance Afghan photographer and filmmaker, Najeebullah Musafir, was accused of blasphemy and “insulting Islam” through his documentary questioning the misuse of religious institutions for political gain.
Court Proceedings:
He was detained and interrogated for several months. Religious authorities demanded his execution.
Outcome:
Following pressure from international journalist associations and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Musafir was released without formal conviction.
International Criticism:
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) condemned the arbitrary use of blasphemy laws to silence artists.
UNESCO stated that Afghanistan’s government must align its media policy with international human rights standards.
6. Case 5: The Case of Rafiq Tora (2021)
Background:
Rafiq Tora, a social media influencer, posted satirical videos mocking corrupt mullahs. Under Taliban control, he was arrested in Herat for “mocking Islam” and “spreading atheistic propaganda.”
Court Proceedings:
The Taliban’s religious court quickly convicted him without public trial.
Outcome:
Reports indicated he was detained indefinitely; his family was threatened not to contact foreign media.
International Criticism:
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International condemned the arrest as a “new wave of Taliban repression of creative freedom.”
The European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for his release, citing Afghanistan’s obligation under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
7. Case 6: The Case of University Professor Faizullah Jalal (2022)
Background:
Dr. Faizullah Jalal, a political science professor at Kabul University, criticized Taliban policies on national television, accusing them of misusing Islam for power.
Court Proceedings:
He was arrested by the Taliban’s intelligence unit on charges of “blasphemy and insulting Islamic values.”
Outcome:
Released after several weeks under diplomatic pressure from the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).
International Reaction:
The European Union condemned the arrest as a “direct violation of academic freedom.”
UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Afghanistan stated that blasphemy charges were being used to suppress intellectual dissent.
8. Case 7: The Case of Shafiqa (Women’s Rights Activist, 2023)
Background:
Shafiqa, a women’s rights activist in Kabul, criticized the Taliban’s gender segregation policy on social media, calling it “against the compassion Islam teaches.” She was accused of blasphemy.
Court Proceedings:
She was detained by Taliban authorities for “insulting Islamic teachings.”
Outcome:
After months of detention and torture, she was released under pressure from international organizations advocating for Afghan women.
International Reaction:
UN Women and Amnesty International condemned the case as a sign of systematic suppression of female activism.
Global protests highlighted the Taliban’s abuse of blasphemy charges to silence women.
9. International Legal Perspective
According to international human rights standards:
Article 18 & 19 of ICCPR guarantee freedom of religion and expression.
Afghanistan, as a signatory (prior to 2021), was obligated to prevent misuse of religious laws for political persecution.
The UN Human Rights Committee (General Comment No. 34) explicitly declares that blasphemy laws are incompatible with international law if they suppress legitimate expression.
10. Conclusion
International criticism of Afghan blasphemy prosecutions is rooted in the conflict between religious orthodoxy and universal human rights principles.
The above cases show:
A pattern of suppression of dissenting voices.
A lack of fair judicial process.
Global condemnation leading to some political interventions but no systematic reform.
These cases collectively reveal that Afghan blasphemy prosecutions have been tools of control rather than justice, inviting continuous scrutiny and condemnation from the global community.
RELATED Blog
0 comments