Afghan Women Archives

Shia scholars in Afghanistan assert that Islam does not forbid women from working, provided that religious guidelines are observed. They argue that women’s labor can significantly contribute to household economies—especially in times of widespread unemployment—and urge the Taliban government to lift the bans imposed on female employment.

Historical Precedent in Early Islam

Hojjat al-Islam Ebrahim Mohagheq, a Shia scholar from Bamyan Province, states in a recent interview that there is nothing in Islam that prevents women from working so long as religious norms are maintained. He recalls that in the early days of Islam, women actively worked alongside men—for instance, Khadija bint Khuwaylid, a successful businesswoman, invested her wealth in advancing the cause of Islam.

Current Economic Strain and Female-Headed Households

Mohagheq emphasizes the current dire economic situation in Afghanistan. Many Shia families are without income, and international humanitarian aid has dropped sharply. The prohibition of women’s work, he warns, risks deepening hardship. He further notes that many families are led by women and that enabling women to work could be essential for survival.

Shia Views on Equality and Legal Roles

Another Shia scholar from Badakhshan, Hojjat al-Islam Shakeri, points out that Islam does not differentiate between men and women in matters such as judgment (qaza) where a woman can serve as a judge, though he acknowledges that jurists differ in opinion. He asserts that women’s participation in work is directly related to the economic health of society and can help sustain economic activity.

Collision with Decrees by the Taliban

Since the Taliban returned to power, they have imposed strict limits on the employment and education of women. Among recent restrictions is the barring of women from working in governmental institutions or international organizations. These moves have drawn criticism from UN representatives and Shia religious leaders alike.

Scholars’ Recommendations for the Government

Shia leaders propose that relevant authorities should focus on creating job opportunities and allowing women to work under conditions that respect Islam. They believe lifting the ban on female employment could alleviate poverty, support families, and prevent humanitarian catastrophe.

en.jahanbanou.ir

From: Ahlul Bayt News Agency (ABNA)

Once again, the United Nations has expressed concern over the situation of Afghan women, blaming the Taliban while conveniently ignoring the central role of U.S. meddling policies that laid the groundwork for both the rise of the Taliban and the current crisis.

✍|by Ms. Maryam Ordouie

A Selective Narrative of Suffering

UN officials, whose salaries revolve around voicing alarm over human rights failures in West Asia, periodically warn about the plight of Afghan women and girls—mourning their lack of basic welfare and healthcare services. Yet, right after these expressions of regret, they point the finger squarely at the Taliban, painting them as the sole villains responsible for all injustices and shortcomings.

As a recent display of performative concern, UN representatives claimed: “Life for women and girls in informal settlements in Afghanistan is difficult due to the lack of basic services and drinking water, and returning families face forced displacement.” While the UN is adept at declaring “red alerts” for regional crises, its expressions of concern often carry an odor of hypocrisy.

Misplaced Blame, Overlooked Causes

The narrative is skewed and dishonest. The UN directs its accusing finger at the Taliban—“backward, bearded men”—who are themselves the product of a far greater cause: the United States. The UN, rooted in U.S. interests, simply cannot acknowledge America, for its raison d’être is built on overlooking the “big devil” at center stage.

This organization is loquacious when reporting on the current state of Afghan women, yet renders itself mute when it comes to America’s propagandized attacks on Afghanistan and the legitimacy given to NATO’s military presence. The UN is quick to lament the consequences (the Taliban) but never the cause. It remains indifferent to the fact that after September 11, the U.S.—with the pretext of defending women’s rights—set foot in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, years earlier, under President Reagan, American foreign policy had already embraced support for “Islamist freedom fighters,” inadvertently nurturing the Taliban. The UN remains silent on CIA interventions that transformed secular Afghan schools into centers of radicalized teachings, corrupting the notion of jihad.

The UN feigns ignorance regarding the explosive rise in CIA-backed religious schools—from 2,500 in 1980 to 39,000 later on—filled with violent, takfiri doctrines. These lessons later fueled the Taliban’s mushrooming influence—a justification for America’s invasion, and NATO’s military presence, ostensibly to protect women from Taliban restrictions!

Exposing the Colonial Facade

Even Gargi Bhattacharyya, in her pivotal work Dangerous Brown Men: Exploiting Sex, Violence and Feminism in the ‘War on Terror’, lays bare how feminism became a tool for imperial agendas: “The problem for women in the ‘West’ is that the name of our feminism is being taken in vain by those who historically have had little interest in our advancement […] claims that are being made in our name are not, in fact, easily distinguishable from those articulated by ‘real’ feminists.”

Meanwhile, those familiar with embedded feminism—or the misuse of feminist discourse to justify state intervention—understand how women’s rights were co-opted to legitimize war efforts in Afghanistan.

Western Feminism as a War Rhetoric

As Bhattacharyya explains, Western imperial violence clothed in rhetoric of rights and democracy—“a project of bombing for freedom”—has revealed the contradictions at the heart of modern imperial relations. The invocations of democracy and feminism have become convenient shields for violent expropriation.

Conclusion

Take heed: Western human rights charters—so proudly proclaimed in the West—will not warm the cause of Eastern freedoms.