Taliban Rule Has Set Women's Rights Back a Century!

• Interview with Mohammad Moheq, Islamic Studies Expert 

Samim: How would you describe the current situation of women in Afghanistan? What changes have you seen compared to the Republic era? A related question: How have the Taliban's religious interpretations affected women's legal, social, and political rights?

Moheq: To understand what is really happening to women in Afghanistan, we should first look at the bigger picture over the last 100 years. In that time, Afghanistan has tried several times to move toward development and modernization. A key part of that has always been improving women's status.

In traditional society, women had a fixed role with serious problems. The world slowly accepted that women should move beyond discrimination and have equal rights with men. International agreements on human rights, especially women's rights, stressed this point: women must escape discrimination.

Afghanistan followed this global trend. Over the past century, there were repeated efforts. We saw them in the women's movement, in Amir Amanullah Khan's reforms, in the constitutionalists, and other progressive forces.

The 20-year Republic period was the clearest example. It was built in earlier times under Amanullah and the monarchy. We can call it the "third wave" of change for Afghan womenخوIn this third wave, millions of girls got access to education at primary, secondary, high school, and university levels. Many even completed master's and PhD degrees.

Samim: What about women's participation in other areas of social life?

Moheq: Besides education, women stood out in civil and social activities. They took part in politics and held power positions. Women ran for president, became ministers, deputies, ambassadors, parliament members, directors, and worked in legal fields.

What happened in the Republic's 20 years was a huge leap forward for women. It was very hopeful. Despite obstacles, challenges, and threats in traditional society, many women lost their lives for participating. Afghanistan made real progress. Compared to some neighbors, Afghan women had better conditions.

But the Taliban's return caused a major setback. In terms of women's progress, we have gone back to the early or mid-20th century. We lost 70–80 years of gains, or even 100 in some ways.

As a result, many educated and experienced women in politics, society, economy, and culture had to leave the country.

In a society where most people are illiterate and development is limited, losing these women is a huge loss. Their roots in politics and society are cut. They become exiles or refugees, a diaspora with no clear future.

The society loses its skills. Women still in Afghanistan feel this trauma. Their collective morale weakens. They lose hope for change.

This is the overall picture of women's situation in the three years under the Taliban.

Inside the country, the biggest problem is limits on education. Girls above grade six are banned from school. They have no future. They only get basic literacy, which is not enough to change their lives.

True education helps people develop talents, gain skills, control their lives, and improve their fate. Basic schooling cannot do that. Afghan girls face a very narrow, closed future.

The lessons they do get follow a strict ideology. It is more about brainwashing than real knowledge. This goes against the purpose of education, which should bring freeing awareness. The rulers' teachings create mental slavery. They turn students into obedient robots. That is dangerous.

Problems go beyond education. Women need jobs, income, and economic independence as teachers, government workers, NGO staff, entrepreneurs, workers, sellers, or traders.

Taliban rules trap women at home. They have no role in public life: social, economic, cultural, or political. Women cannot lead government offices, become parliament members, or practice as lawyers.

In short, women have no place in law-making, government, or justice. All this creates structured discrimination against half the population. It brings painful results.

Discriminated people feel humiliated, second-class, and powerless. Discrimination becomes normal in society. Victims start believing they do not matter.

This causes mental health issues: depression, despair, loss of self-belief, and hope for change.

This is happening now. Women across Afghanistan commit suicide, are killed, face sexual and psychological abuse, forced marriages, child marriages, unwanted pregnancies, and more. These push families and society toward a pre-modern state.

Women are treated like slaves, sexual objects, or goods to be traded—without any say in their fate. That is the current reality for Afghan women.

Samim: You mentioned women's agency, in other words, their ability to play a role in social change. They have lost that by force. Let's go deeper.

Since the Taliban returned, they have issued many decrees, rules, and policies on governance. A big part targets woman, limiting their opportunities. The recent "Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" law is one example.

How compatible are these Taliban rules with Afghanistan's long Islamic tradition and Sharia principles?

Moheq: First, the Taliban are a fundamentalist group. Fundamentalists generally view women unequally. No fundamentalist group in Afghanistan sees women as equal to men.

They may say in slogans that Islam honors all humans equally. But in practice, even traditional fiqh (Jurisprudence) shows inequality in some areas, like inheritance, custody, or testimony.

Some old fiqh rules fit pre-modern values. They made sense then, but not in the modern world, where equality is possible.

In the past, wealth and power came mostly from war. Men dominated fighting, so they got more rewards. Laws reflected that unequal society.

Today, things have changed. Constant wars are over. We have nation-states and laws based on social contracts and peace.

Old strict rulings no longer fit. Fundamentalists face a paradox: they want to keep traditional views on women while living in a modern world with human rights, technology, and global relations.

This mismatch creates deadlock. The stricter the group, the worse the problems. The Taliban are a clear example.

Religious texts can be interpreted in many ways—not just Islamic ones, but all religions.

You can find strict, anti-women interpretations. Or you can find ones that fit human dignity, rights, justice, and equality today.

In the Muslim world over the last 150 years, governments, religious bodies, and scholars have worked to update interpretations. They want Islam to fit modern life without clashing with global values.

Many Muslim countries have done this to different degrees—selecting moderate rulings or creating new ones.

But the Taliban do the opposite. From classic sources, they pick the strictest views. Then they apply them even strictly.

For example, on face covering: many scholars, including Imam Abu Hanifa, said a woman's face is not awrah and does not need covering. Women do not cover their faces during Hajj, but the Taliban ignore moderate views and choose the harshest.

Samim: Why do they act so strictly?

Moheq: They select the extreme interpretations. Look at Abdul Hakim Haqqani's book, which is, in fact, their governance manifesto. From all schools of fiqh, he picks the toughest on girls' education, travel, work, and even looking at others.

Some views he takes are rare outliers. Most scholars reject them. Historically, great Sufis and scholars interacted freely with women. The Taliban cherry-picks strict views. They also use religion selectively for power. They enforce strict rules on women to control society and crush resistance. But on money, from aid, taxes, and mines, they are not strict. Leaders spend freely without religious worry.

Commanders compete for spoils. So, rules on women are really about political control, not pure religion. The virtue and vice ministry serve power, not faith.

Samim: Another scholar, Ali Amiri, called Haqqani's book the Taliban's political manifesto. How is it linked to the new virtue and vice law? How does this law limit women's personal freedoms and rights? How does it differ from earlier decrees?

Moheq: To see the link, look at Taliban political philosophy. They do not believe in citizens. They reject good governance. In modern views, even pre-modern history of human beings, the government provides security and services. 

Today, governments focus on education, health, the economy, and rights. But the Taliban see the government's main job as enforcing Sharia for the afterlife, getting people to heaven, saving them from hell.

They take a simple view of Quranic verses on commanding good and forbidding wrong. They think victory over "infidels" makes them chosen to enforce prayer, zakat, virtue, and vice.

Many scholars disagree on how to apply this. The Taliban ignore social conditions. They focus on religion, not people's daily welfare. They reject modern ideas like citizenship, privacy, and good governance. Discussing these would limit their absolute power. So, they rule vaguely under "Sharia" and have no clear measures, letting mullahs do what they want.

Samim: What are the results of this approach for Taliban governance?

Moheq: They do not separate private and public life. Their virtue ministry acts like a state within the state. It interferes everywhere: media, police, customs, markets, transport, minorities, tourism. It disrupts all other ministries and modern governance. Citizens and officials suffer from its overreach. It destroys urban and social order.

Samim: The ministry has over 4,500 members with unlimited power. You said the law is based on Hanafi fiqh. What about religious minorities?

Moheq: Yes, virtue enforcers have vast power. But unclear authority is common in Taliban rule, based on the personal whims of leaders, commanders, and judges.

This has hurt many people in three years, not just from the virtue ministry, but also commanders, intelligence, and officials. Examples: armed men seize homes, forge documents. UN often stays quiet to avoid angering the Taliban and losing access.

On minorities: Afghanistan has small religious groups (Hindus, Sikhs) and larger sectarian ones (Shia Ja'fari, Ismaili, some Sunnis like Sufis or Salafis).

Shia face official discrimination. Taliban reject Ja'fari fiqh (Jafari Jurisprudence) as equal to Hanafi. This builds structural bias in a diverse country. Shia followers should have rights to their courts, schools, and worship. But the virtue ministry enables the suppression of all minorities, especially the Shia. This threatens future tolerance.

Samim: What specific economic, social, and psychological effects have these policies had on women and girls? As a journalist and researcher in touch with people inside, do you have short-term examples?

Moheq: Half the society is barred from work and income. Any country losing half its workforce faces an economic crisis. Per capita income drops sharply. Afghanistan already relied on aid. Now it is worse. The economy favors Taliban insiders, and relatives get privileges in trade, customs.

Ordinary people, especially women, are excluded. Few women remain as teachers or nurses with recent pay cuts. Real entrepreneurship is gone.

When families see no future for their daughters' education or jobs, despair grows. Many who can leave do, taking families, money, and skills. Millions fled in three years.

Others plan to leave or feel hopeless. Global experience shows economic progress is linked to mental health. Discrimination and stagnation cause recession, like now, as a consequence, women suffer most.

Samim: To wrap up, what about international mechanisms? UN Human Rights Council, ICC, national and local civil society, how can they support women? Have they been effective? How to improve?

Moheq: Any effort is better than none. But international and national groups have not been as effective as needed. They have not reduced despair much. I hear from women teachers, media workers, and activists that they face increasing pressure and danger. Some international efforts even normalize the situation, saying women still move in markets, to encourage gradual change.

This helps the Taliban globally, for institutional self-interest. It ignores risks like extremist schools, rising ethnic tensions. Some reports downplay big problems and highlight small positives. This harms Afghanistan's future. We need critical views of some organizations distorting reality for personal gain.

Samim: Thank you for your time.

Moheq: You are welcome.

Note to Readers: 

This interview comes from a 2024 series of discussions. Yasin Samim, a founding member of the Forward Together Development Network (FTD-N), conducted the interviews with experts on human rights, Islamic studies, and women's rights. The aim was to document and highlight the Taliban's harmful policies toward women.

The interviews were published in Dari and Pashto on the website of Etilaatroz Daily, an independent news outlet now operating in exile.

We thank Etilaatroz for their partnership. We now publish them in a shorter version in English to reach English-speaking readers and activists. The situation remains severe and has not improved since these interviews were conducted.