Stoning Punishment Based on Sharia: Mujahid

Previously, Farhan Haq, Deputy Spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, called the implementation of stoning sentences on women in Afghanistan disappointing

The Islamic Emirate said that the United Nations’ concern about the implementation of stoning sentences for women in the country is baseless.

Zabihullah Mujahid, the spokesperson for the Islamic Emirate, said that stoning is part of Sharia law and the world should not misinterpret it.

“Without a doubt, one of the Sharia laws is stoning. If the conditions for it arise again, we will undoubtedly implement the Sharia decrees; whether it is prayer or stoning, we will carry it out,” Mujahid told TOLOnews.

Previously, Farhan Haq, Deputy Spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, called the implementation of stoning sentences on women in Afghanistan disappointing and said that restrictions on women and girls in the country should be lifted.

“it’s extremely disheartening, as you know we have been expressing our concern consistently about the mistreatment of women and many of the rulings by Taliban and we have called for those edicts to be revoked and we will continue pressure on that to push for the equal rights of women in Afghanistan and indeed in all countries,” Farhan Haq said.

“Although women’s rights are greatly violated in Afghanistan, and they are deprived of all their fundamental rights; in my opinion, it would be better if the Islamic Emirate chooses an alternative to stoning for a female offender,” said Fazila Sarwari, a women’s rights activist.

Although some institutions and countries around the world have consistently criticized what they consider to be human rights violations, especially the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, the Islamic Emirate has stated that the rights of all citizens are protected under Islamic laws in the country.

Stoning Punishment Based on Sharia: Mujahid
read more

Moscow Claims Washington Supports Daesh, Al-Qaeda

The Islamic Emirate said that Daesh emerged during the presence of the United States in Afghanistan.

Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in an article for Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper said that Daesh has targeted opponents of the United States, including the “Taliban,” in recent years.

In the article, Maria Zakharova accused the United States of supporting Al-Qaeda and Daesh.

“Oddly enough, ISIS has adjusted its plans in recent years and now attacks mostly enemies of the US, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Iranians, the legitimate authorities in Syria, and Russia,” she told Komsomolskaya Pravda.

Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, also made accusations against the US the day before, regarding support for Daesh.

The Islamic Emirate said that Daesh emerged during the presence of the United States in Afghanistan.

Zabihullah Mujahid, the spokesperson for the Islamic Emirate, does not consider Daesh a threat to Afghanistan and says that Western countries exaggerate Daesh in Afghanistan for their specific goals.

“Daesh was one of the phenomena that grew and emerged under the American occupation in Afghanistan and created problems for the Afghan people, against whom the Islamic Emirate fought after coming to power,” he said.

“They were supposed to work for the interests of the United States, which they were unable to do properly, and I think that against Daesh, there should be a comprehensive and universal fight by the international community and all countries because it is an inappropriate phenomenon,” said Samim Shamsi, a political analyst.

Previously, the New York Times also claimed in a report that Daesh’s Khorasan branch in Afghanistan is targeting the embassies of Iran, China, and India in Kabul; a claim that was dismissed as baseless by the Islamic Emirate.

Moscow Claims Washington Supports Daesh, Al-Qaeda
read more

Philadelphia college student hopes to pave the way for more Afghan women to join the medical field

“Women will come over and tell you, ‘Thank you so much for having this. We are all alone in Philadelphia. Most of our family is in Afghanistan, but coming here we weren’t able to feel that separation and that loneliness.’ And that just makes everything worth it,” Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine student Abdul Faruq said.
She and others started the group Afghans of Philadelphia x Sola in 2021 to help families who were fleeing from the Taliban.

Her own family also left Afghanistan shortly after she was born more than 20 years ago in search of more opportunities.”Being a woman was very difficult there,” Abdul Faruq said. “There’re certain areas where they can’t even go outside alone without a male chaperone. They can’t go to school, get a higher education. So, I, their first child, was born and I was a girl so I feel like it was that extra push for them to get out in order to speak a better future.”

Her family eventually found their new home in Northeast Philly.

“Coming to Philadelphia, which is known as the City of Brotherly Love, it’s like a great combination between Afghans and Philadelphia because we’re both so hospitable and there’s just so much love and diversity here,” Abdul Faruq said.

Now the 26-year-old is a first-year medical student at PCOM.

“Not only are there not a lot of Afghans represented overall in the community, but there’s even less in medicine and there’s even less female Afghans in medicine as well,” Abdul Faruq said. “Just being part of that group, I feel like it’s a way to inspire others as well.”

She hopes to do that through her role as co-president of the American Medical Women’s Association on campus.

Each accomplishment is a reminder to her family that she will always remember where she came from.

“If I can at least change one person’s perspective on what Afghanistan is and who the people are from there and their culture, then I feel like I’ve done a tremendous job because there is just so much more to our culture,” Abdul Faruq said.

Once Abdul Faruq is done with medical school, she hopes to go back to Afghanistan and open up a clinic there to provide healthcare to communities.

Marcella Baietto is a bilingual reporter with CBS News Philadelphia. She’s originally from Phoenix, Arizona, but considers El Salvador her second home since much of her family still lives there.

Philadelphia college student hopes to pave the way for more Afghan women to join the medical field
read more

The U.S. Failure in Afghanistan Was Not the Withdrawal

World Politics Review

This past week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held hearings on the Biden administration’s controversial withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Retired Gens. Mark A. Milley and Kenneth McKenzie, who both served in leadership roles under President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, testified and faced questions from congressional leaders from both parties. In explaining Washington’s failures in Afghanistan, Milley told Congress that the U.S. “could not forge a nation.” He has previously stated that the U.S. had “lost the war.”

The hearings are not related to Congress’ bipartisan Afghanistan War Commission, which is investigating the entire 20-year period of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and whose report will be released later. Rather, they are an effort by congressional Republicans to draw negative attention to the Biden administration’s foreign policy in the runup to the November presidential election. As such, the hearings have become a renewed focal point for political narratives about blame. But they also create an opportunity to consider counterfactual hypothetical scenarios that could expand our understanding of the U.S failure in Afghanistan.

For many Democrats as well as Republicans, the mishandling of the withdrawal is seen as a moral blight on the U.S., which having first broken Afghanistan then walked away. Even for the majority of U.S. citizens who believed leaving was the right thing to do, the chaotic nature of the withdrawal itself and the failure to adequately protect Washington’s Afghan allies during and after the withdrawal have caused concern. A separate U.S. State Department report from 2022 traced the roots of the botched evacuation to the policies of both the Biden and Trump administrations.

Many criticisms from both sides of the aisle are well-founded, regardless of which of the two men battling for the White House this year are perceived to bear the greatest blame. When the U.S. announced its departure in 2021, it caused a swift collapse in the morale of the Afghan army, allowing the Taliban to sweep across the country. Since their takeover, repression is severe, food insecurity is rife, and women and girls face ongoing and worsening gender apartheid. The problems have been compounded by the Biden administration’s continued freeze of Afghanistan’s national reserves as well as crippling sanctions that have thrown the population into greater poverty. Amid these dynamics, al-Qaida has a resurgent presence in the country, as does the Islamic State, whose Afghanistan-based offshoot—the Islamic State-Khorasan, or IS-K—was responsible for the attack in Moscow that killed at least 137 people Friday.

But the deeper blame here with regard to the U.S. failure to improve the lives of Afghans and secure the region against terrorism can’t reasonably be pinned on either Trump or Biden. That’s because the problem wasn’t the failure to build a nation, win a war, stay longer or leave sooner, but rather the fact that the U.S. was never the right actor to create or oversee a sustainable peace once the immediate conflict with the Taliban ended in 2002. The decision to remain in the country fighting a counterinsurgency, rather than step back and allow the United Nations to take over, was taken by neither Trump nor Biden, but by then-President George W. Bush soon after 9/11. This meant Trump and Biden both inherited a lengthy “war” in Afghanistan that could have and should have been a multinational peace operation almost from the start.

Milley is right: The U.S. military is not good at nation-building, defined by political scientist James L. Payne as “the use of ground troops to support a deliberate effort to establish democracy.” But nor are most other invading countries good at it, which is why, Payne argues, “nation-building” conducted by the invader that topples the previous regime so often fails. In fact, political science research shows that international involvement on the side of a government to fight insurgencies, which frequently occurs once a regime is toppled, usually lengthens, broadens and complexifies the very civil wars that are often the impetus for such interventions.

But this doesn’t mean that international support to rebuild a society after toppling a repressive government is itself a bad idea or that the U.S. couldn’t have made it happen. In fact, there is a different paradigm for post-conflict societal reconstruction that actually has an excellent track record: peace-building under U.N. auspices. Such missions take as their starting point U.N. involvement as a neutral actor that does not back either side of a conflict but rather supports peace. According to research by the Rand Corporation, compared to the U.S. or other invading countries, this recipe more often than not actually works.


The problem in Afghanistan wasn’t the U.S. failure to build a nation or win a war, but the fact that the U.S. was never the right actor to create or oversee a sustainable peace once the conflict with the Taliban ended in 2002.


U.N. personnel can help create peace by solving credible commitment problems, and they can help keep peace by providing inducements, persuasion and, if needed, coercive measures to enforce agreements. Beyond simple peacekeeping, democratic, rights-based institutions are also generally part of the peace-building recipe, but under U.N. auspices they use home-grown, culturally appropriate models rather than those imposed by specific Western powers. And the use of armed force in such missions is generally limited to that required to protect civilians from armed groups or the government. These strategies, when conducted by the U.N. rather than invading foreigners, have been shown to be extraordinarily effective across numerous U.N. missions using various indicators of success. This is a completely different paradigm from the counterinsurgency approach adopted by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Despite the current narrative of failure, the U.S. actually won the initial Afghanistan war, routing the Taliban quickly in late 2001 and early 2002 with help from a coalition of nonaligned Afghan tribes, the Northern Alliance. But then the U.S. threw itself behind the Western-styled, U.S.-funded Afghan national government while continuing to hunt terrorists in violation of U.N. human rights standards and conducting low-intensity “warfare” against the Taliban, which by then had become an insurgency. In so doing, the U.S. became a party to an ongoing civil war it couldn’t ever win and created a perception by the Afghan people that their national government was being propped up by the West. Under these circumstances, it was no surprise that the national government fell when the U.S. withdrew.

Imagine, however, a counterfactual history where the U.S. removed the Taliban but then immediately pivoted to supporting a truly multinational U.N. peacekeeping and peacebuilding force comprising not just Western troops but troops from the Global South—as was actually requested by the Taliban at the time, and again in 2009. In this scenario, the U.S. would have allowed the U.N. to negotiate an inclusive power-sharing agreement between the Taliban and a new Afghan national government when the Taliban was on the back foot, with Washington rallying funding and troop contributions from other U.N. members. The resulting large, inclusive, mostly non-Western U.N. peacekeeping mission would have overseen reconstruction in culturally sensitive ways consistent with both Afghan cultural normsand international human rights standards, and based on the will of the Afghan people. The U.S. would have leveraged the unprecedented international sympathy it enjoyed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks to rally support from moderate Muslim-majority countries and Islamic scholars to conduct international trials of captured terrorists. The venue for those trials would have been a U.N. Security Council-initiated special ad hoc tribunal using processes the U.N. had mastered in trying crimes against humanity in Rwanda and Yugoslavia.

In that scenario, many problems could still have arisen. But the U.S. military would never have been stuck in a quagmire unsuited to its training and job description; Afghanistan’s rural countryside would not have been ravaged by drone warfare for two decades, throwing sympathy back to the Taliban; the U.S. government would not have besmirched its own reputation in the Muslim world through extrajudicial executions and detainee-abuse scandals, providing recruitment material to the likes of ISIS; and the Afghan army would have been less dependent on U.S. backing from the start.

The events of August 2021 were made inevitable not just by the Biden administration’s hurried evacuation or even by the Trump administration’s sidelining of the Afghan national government in its 2020 negotiations with the Taliban in Doha, but also by the 20 years of counterinsurgency that preceded the withdrawal. Rather than allowing the U.N. to broker, enforce and build on a sustainable peace, the U.S. sided with one belligerent in what became an ongoing civil war. By the time Biden took office, as described in the White House’s own 2023 report on the evacuation, he felt his hands had been tied.

This is not to say Trump and Biden did not make meaningful choices. Trump could have avoided throwing the national government under the bus. Biden could have reversed Trump’s timetable, begun the evacuation sooner or extended it over a longer period. And his administration could still do much more to streamline red tape for Afghans and assist many more to reach the United States.

But if the overall U.S. record in Afghanistan was a failure, it wasn’t a failure to “win a war” or “forge a nation,” but rather to build a postwar peace starting in 2002. That failure of imagination was inherited by both of the presidents being blamed in these congressional hearings now. By expanding their imagination now, analysts and U.S. citizens can draw smarter lessons for future interventions.

Charli Carpenter is a professor of political science and legal studies at University of Massachusetts-Amherst, specializing in human security and international law. She tweets at @charlicarpenter.

The U.S. Failure in Afghanistan Was Not the Withdrawal
read more

Moscow concert hall attack: How did ISIL recoup, five years after ‘defeat’?

By

Al Jazeera

On Thursday morning, US State Department official Ian McCary sat down in a blue suit, red tie and brown shoes for a question-and-answer session at The Washington Institute to mark the fifth anniversary of the “defeat” of ISIL (ISIS) in Syria.

The US-led coalition, along with its local partners, had on March 23, 2019 pushed the armed group out of Baghuz in Syria — a country where it once had its de facto capital, in Raqqa. “This was and remains a milestone in our continued efforts to ensure ISIS cannot resurge,” McCary said in his comments.

Just a day later, gunmen would barge into a packed concert hall in Moscow, Russia, spraying music lovers with bullets and setting the venue on fire, on the eve of that “milestone” victory.

More than 130 people have been killed, including three children, and over 100 others have been injured, in the worst such attack that Russia has witnessed in two decades.

ISIL’s Afghanistan arm — also known as the Islamic State in Khorasan Province, ISKP (ISIS-K) – swiftly claimed responsibility. The United States has said that its intelligence suggests the claim is accurate.

On ISKP social media channels, supporters have been celebrating the attack, according to analysts. It’s the latest sign, say strategic experts, of how ISIL has recovered from some of its setbacks in Syria and Iraq, and how Afghanistan has emerged as a vital staging ground for its growing ambitions.

“Should the attack in Russia be definitively attributed to ISKP, it would underscore the group’s resolve to align its actions with its pronounced objectives — targeting countries that play pivotal roles in the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and South and Central Asia,” said Amira Jadoon, assistant professor of political science at the South Carolina-based Clemson University, and co-author of the 2023 book, The Islamic State in Afghanistan and Pakistan: Strategic Alliances and Rivalries.

The Russia concert attack comes two months after suicide bombings in Kerman, Iran, killed more than 90 people and injured nearly 300 others. ISKP claimed responsibility for those attacks too.

While Russia — seen by ISIL as an oppressor of Muslims in Chechnya, Syria and Afghanistan (during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s) — and Shia-majority Iran have long been in the crosshairs of the armed group, there’s a broader strategic intent behind recent attacks too, said Jadoon.

“By directing its aggression towards nations such as Iran and Russia, ISKP not only confronts regional heavyweights but also underscores its political relevance and operational reach on the global stage,” she told Al Jazeera.

Yet analysts say that none of this would have been possible without the group’s success in building a safe base in Afghanistan — and actually bolstering its presence in that country even after its archenemy, the Taliban, took control of that nation in August 2021.

‘More breathing room’

At the height of its influence, ISIL controlled about a third of Syria and 40 percent of Iraq.

Faced with military pressure from a range of otherwise battling regional players — a US-led alliance, Russia and Iran — as well as the governments of those two countries, it lost 95 percent of that territory by the end of 2017. The March 2019 loss of Baghuz eliminated the group’s physical control of any town, city or region in Iraq or Syria.

Meanwhile, its Afghanistan affiliate, the ISKP was continuing to build its reputation as a deadly force: In May 2020, it was blamed for an attack on a maternity ward in Kabul that killed 24 people, including women and infants. Six months later, its fighters attacked Kabul University, killing at least 22 students and teachers.

Then, as the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan, ISKP sent a chilling message to its local nemesis and to the hurriedly departing US military, with devastating bombings at Kabul airport that killed at least 175 civilians and 13 US soldiers.

Since then, “ISKP in Afghanistan has grown in strength significantly”, said Kabir Taneja, a fellow at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation and author of the 2019 book, The ISIS Peril. Its attacks have spilled over the border into Pakistan too, where the group bombed an election rally last July, killing more than 50 people.

And the Taliban’s power grab in Afghanistan has helped, said Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Washington-based Wilson Center.

“ISIS-K may be a rival of the Taliban, but ISIS-K benefitted from the Taliban’s takeover, and also the US withdrawal,” Kugelman told Al Jazeera.

“The Taliban staged prison breaks that ended up freeing ISIS-K fighters,” he said. The collapse of the US-backed Afghan military gave the ISKP opportunities to seize weapons. And the Taliban’s lack of an air force has given the group a chance to take and hold ground.

“The absence of NATO air strikes — perhaps the most effective tactic used to manage the ISIS-K threat — gives the group more breathing room, especially because the Taliban can’t operate airpower,” Kugelman said. “In effect, ISIS-K has benefited from an enabling environment in Afghanistan, emboldening it to expand its focus far beyond its bastion areas.”

New ambitions

It isn’t just the ISKP that has grown its influence — the main ISIL has too, said Taneja.

“ISIS in its original regions of operations, Syria and Iraq, also sees [an] uptick in operational capabilities,” he told Al Jazeera. ISIL, Taneja said, today exists in a form of “suspension, where it’s ideologically powerful even if politically, tactically or strategically not that powerful any more.

“And how to combat this is the big question at a time when big power completion and global geopolitical churn has put counterterrorism on the back burner.”

“In essence, orchestrating international attacks beyond the confines of Pakistan and Afghanistan is a deliberate tactic within ISKP’s strategy to globalise its campaign,” she said.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA
Moscow concert hall attack: How did ISIL recoup, five years after ‘defeat’?
read more

 First Intl Water Conference to Be Held Soon in Kabul

Roza Otunbayeva, and Raffaella Iodice, pledged that they will cooperate with the government and people of Afghanistan in various sectors.

Abdul Rasheed Iqbal, chancellor of Kabul Polytechnic University, said that lecturers and scientists from several countries, including Russia, India, Pakistan, and Iran, are interested in participating in this conference.

“We plan to organize an international water conference at Kabul Polytechnic University at the end of September 2024, and this will be the first international water conference in Kabul,” Abdul Rasheed Iqbal said during a tree planting campaign program.

At the same time, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock, Sadrazam Osmani, stated that Afghanistan currently needs global assistance in the sectors of climate change, water management, and forest development.

He called on international organizations and the European Union to help Afghanistan in mitigating the impacts of climate change.

“Our country is greatly harmed, and the reason is that greenhouse gas production in Afghanistan is low, yet its vulnerability is high,” Sadrazam Osmani added.

Roza Otunbayeva, the head of UNAMA, and the European Union Chargée d’Affaires to Afghanistan, who also attended the program, pledged that they will cooperate with the government and people of Afghanistan in various sectors.

“Afghanistan faces very severe climate change, and today we are here again — those programs which you have and all the international organizations, the international community, will do our best to help your country in this regard also,” said Roza Otunbayeva.

“We acknowledge and we are here to acknowledge that Afghanistan, despite being one of the countries least responsible for the emission of greenhouse gasses, is one of the most affected,” said Raffaella Iodice, the EU Chargée d’Affaires to Afghanistan.

Previously, officials of the Islamic Emirate have stated that Afghanistan ranks sixth among the countries most affected by climate change, and international aid in this sector has decreased in Afghanistan.

 First Intl Water Conference to Be Held Soon in Kabul
read more

Russia Criticizes US’s 20-Year Presence in Afghanistan

Meanwhile, the Islamic Emirate said that America invaded Afghanistan to manage Central Asian countries and its rivals.

Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, criticized the 20-year presence of the United States in Afghanistan in an interview with TASS news agency, stating that the US did not combat terrorism in Afghanistan.

Sergey Lavrov also said that Moscow, following the events of September 11th, was among the first countries that did not oppose the presence of the US in Afghanistan; however, according to the Russian Foreign Minister, terrorism was not dealt with over these twenty years.

According to TASS, “Lavrov also recalled that the United States came to Afghanistan with the sympathies of the UN Security Council after the attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.”

“President Putin was the first to call US President George W. Bush and offered help and support. No one objected or called the entry of American coalition troops into Afghanistan an aggression or occupation. Everyone understood that such a terrorist attack must be held accountable. Twenty years of stay in Afghanistan showed that the Americans did not fight any kind of terrorism,” Lavrov said as quoted by TASS.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Emirate said that America invaded Afghanistan to manage Central Asian countries and its rivals.

“They had come to occupy and permanently conquer Afghanistan, to build their military bases on our soil, to control Central Asia from Afghanistan, and to threaten some of their rival countries from here,” Zabihullah Mujahid, the spokesperson for the Islamic Emirate, told TOLOnews.

“We have realized that the intense competition between the Americans and the Russians is underway. They accuse each other over geopolitical competitions for resources; however, in the case of Afghanistan, it is sufficient that the Americans failed in counter-terrorism and nation-building in Afghanistan,” said Shir Aqa Rohani, a political analyst.

“It’s okay that there was a significant change in the economy, especially in the lives of the people, because billions of dollars flowed into Afghanistan during the twenty-year presence of the United States and other NATO countries; however, the specific goal that the United States had come for — to fight terrorist groups — unfortunately, was not achieved,” said Najib Rahman Shamal, another political analyst.

Russian officials spoke of counter-terrorism after the recent deadly attack on a concert hall in the Krasnogorsk region of Moscow, which resulted in the death of more than 140 people and injured 182 others.

Russia Criticizes US’s 20-Year Presence in Afghanistan
read more

ISIS-K, Group Tied to Moscow Attack, Has Grown Bolder and More Violent

The New York Times

The militant group violently opposes the Taliban leaders of Afghanistan, where it is based. It is increasingly targeting foreign foes.

Few know better than the Taliban what a relentless foe the Islamic State’s affiliate in Afghanistan can be.

Much of the West considers the Taliban, which reclaimed power in the country in 2021, to be an extremist Islamic movement. But the Islamic State Khorasan, the affiliate that has been linked by U.S. officials to a terrorist attack in suburban Moscow on Friday, has slammed the Taliban government, calling the group’s version of Islamic rule insufficiently hard-line.

The Islamic State Khorasan, or ISIS-K, is one of the last significant antagonists that the Taliban face in Afghanistan. It has carried out a bloody drumbeat of attacks throughout the country in recent years, seeking to use the violence to undermine the Taliban’s relationships with regional allies and to portray the government as incapable of providing security in Afghanistan, experts say.

In the months after the Taliban seized power, ISIS-K carried out near daily attacks on their soldiers at roadside checkpoints and in neighborhoods that are home to the country’s Hazara ethnic minority. The following year, ISIS-K fighters attacked the Russian Embassy in Kabul, tried to assassinate Pakistan’s top diplomat to Afghanistan and sent gunmen into a prominent hotel in Kabul that was home to many Chinese nationals, seeking to undermine the Taliban’s promise of restoring peace.

More recently, ISIS-K’s attacks have grown bolder and stretched beyond Afghanistan’s borders: The group killed at least 43 people in an assault on a political rally in northern Pakistan in July. It killed at least 84 people in two suicide bombings in Iran in January. Now, U.S. officials say ISIS-K was behind the attack in Moscow, which killed at least 133 people.

In recent months, ISIS-K has threatened attacks against the Chinese, Indian and Iranian Embassies in Afghanistan. It has also released a flood of anti-Russian propaganda, denouncing the Kremlin for its interventions in Syria and condemning the Taliban for engaging with the Russian authorities decades after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

“ISIS-K has long been motivated by the logic of outbidding in its attacks,” said Asfandyar Mir, a senior expert at the United States Institute of Peace. “It seeks to outperform rival jihadis by carrying out more audacious attacks to distinguish its jihadi brand and assert leadership of the global jihadi vanguard.”

ISIS-K was established in 2015 by disaffected fighters of the Pakistani Taliban, an ideological twin and ally of the Taliban in Afghanistan. ISIS-K’s ideology spread partly because many villages in eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan are home to Salafi Muslims, the same branch of Sunni Islam as the Islamic State. The Taliban, in contrast, mostly follow the Hanafi school of Islam.

From its early days, ISIS-K has been at odds with the Taliban, fighting over turf in eastern Afghanistan and later denouncing the Taliban’s new government for not instituting what it views as true Shariah law. ISIS-K propaganda has sharply criticized the Taliban for working to establish diplomatic relations with non-Muslim countries, including the United States and Russia, describing the efforts as a betrayal of the global jihadist struggle.

Before the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan ended in 2021, American airstrikes and Afghan commando raids had contained ISIS-K mostly to eastern Afghanistan. But after the withdrawal of Western troops, the Islamic State’s reach expanded to nearly all of the country’s 34 provinces, according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

Since seizing power, the Taliban have carried out a relentless and often ruthless counterterrorism campaign to squash ISIS-K. Those efforts have prevented the group from taking any territory in Afghanistan and pushed many of its fighters into Pakistan, experts say. Taliban security forces killed at least eight of ISIS-K’s leaders in the country last year, according to U.S. officials.

The crackdown drew condemnation from human rights groups that claimed Taliban security forces were summarily executing and forcibly causing disappearances of people accused of being affiliated with the Islamic State in eastern Afghanistan, the group’s historic stronghold.

U.N. monitors also cautioned this year that the Taliban’s counterterrorism operations against ISIS-K “appear to be more focused on the internal threat posed to them than the external operations of the group.”

But even as ISIS-K cells have come under mounting pressure from Taliban security forces, the group has proved resilient and remained active across Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Just a day before the attack near Moscow, the group carried out a suicide bombing in Kandahar, Afghanistan — the birthplace of the Taliban movement — sending a powerful message that even Taliban soldiers in the group’s heartland were not safe.

“The success by the Afghan Taliban didn’t change the degree of threat that the Islamic State Khorasan posed in Afghanistan,” said Riccardo Valle, the director of research at the Khorasan Diary, a research platform based in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital. “It simply forced the Islamic State to shift its military tactics.”

Now, rather than staging small hit-and-run attacks on low-level Taliban soldiers and police officers, ISIS-K has turned its focus to major attacks in Afghanistan and beyond, experts say.

Its propaganda has also painted the Taliban as “betraying the history of Afghanistan and betraying their religion by making friends with their former enemies,” Mr. Valle said, referring to Russia.

The messaging has stoked new fears of attacks by people who are not directly associated with ISIS-K but inspired by the group, experts say. It has also sought to drive a wedge between the Taliban and major powers like Russia, China and Iran that have recently warmed up to the Taliban authorities.

While no country has officially recognized the Taliban government, Russia accepted a military attaché from the Taliban in Moscow this month. China accepted a Taliban ambassador to the country. Both moves were seen as confidence-building measures.

After the attack in Moscow, Abdul Qahar Balkhi, a spokesman for Afghanistan’s foreign ministry, said in a statement on social media that the country “condemns in the strongest terms the recent terrorist attack in Moscow” and “considers it a blatant violation of all human standards.”

He added: “Regional countries must take a coordinated, clear & resolute position against such incidents directed at regional destabilization.”

Zia ur-Rehman contributed reporting.

Christina Goldbaum is the Afghanistan and Pakistan bureau chief for The Times. 

ISIS-K, Group Tied to Moscow Attack, Has Grown Bolder and More Violent
read more

Taliban Chief Defends Islamic Criminal Justice System, Including Stoning Women for Adultery 

The leader of Afghanistan’s fundamentalist Taliban government has said it is determined to enforce the Islamic criminal justice system, including the public stoning of women for adultery.

“Our mission is to enforce sharia and Allah’s Hudud [law],” said Hibatullah Akhundzada in an audio clip Taliban officials said was from his latest speech. They did not say where the reclusive leader spoke, but Akhundzada lives in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar and rarely leaves what is known as the Taliban’s historical birthplace and political headquarters.

He primarily addressed Western critics of the Taliban government, which Akhundzada is effectively controlling from Kandahar, through edicts based on his strict interpretation of Islam.

“You may call it a violation of women’s rights when we publicly stone or flog them for committing adultery because they conflict with your democratic principles,” said the Taliban chief.

“Just as you claim to be striving for the freedom of entire humanity, so do I. I represent Allah, and you represent Satan,” Akhundzada said.

He criticized Western human rights values and women’s freedoms, saying Taliban religious scholars would persistently resist the West and its form of democracy in Afghanistan. “Thanks to these scholars, such a democracy was evicted from this land,” the Taliban leader said.

The Taliban returned to power in August 2021, when the then-internationally backed government collapsed, and U.S.-led Western nations withdrew all their troops after nearly 20 years of involvement in the Afghan war.

Taliban authorities have since publicly flogged hundreds of Afghans, including women, for theft, robbery, and committing “moral crimes” in sports stadiums in the presence of thousands of onlookers. At least four men have also been publicly executed after having been convicted of murder by Taliban courts.

UN Presses Taliban Again to End ‘Heartbreaking’ Curbs on Afghan Women

Akhundzada has suspended girls’ education in Afghanistan beyond the sixth grade and prohibited many women from public and private workplaces, including the United Nations and other aid organizations.

Women are not allowed to undertake long road and air trips unless accompanied by a male relative, and cannot visit public places, such as parks, gyms, and bathhouses.

The Taliban leader defends his governance, saying it is aligned with Afghan culture and Islam.

The new academic year started in Afghanistan last week, but girls above 12 were excluded for the third consecutive year.

The United Nations and the world at large have been urging the Taliban to reverse all sanctions on women and halt corporal punishments and public executions of convicts.

“It is heartbreaking to mark another year where school doors open without the participation of Afghan girls above the age of 12,” Rina Amiri, the U.S. special envoy for Afghan women and human rights, said Saturday on X, formerly known as Twitter.

She reiterated the U.S. call for the Taliban to reverse their “destructive decrees,” saying they are destroying the potential of more than 50% of Afghanistan’s population.

“The Taliban’s relentless, discriminatory edicts against women & girls are keeping Afghanistan poor & aid-dependent, & forcing Afghan families to leave. There is no substitute for all Afghans participating in the formal education system, which has existed for over 100 years,” Amiri wrote.

The international community has not granted formal recognition to the de facto Afghan authorities, citing human rights concerns, especially the harsh treatment of women.

Taliban Chief Defends Islamic Criminal Justice System, Including Stoning Women for Adultery 
read more

Moscow concert hall attack: How did ISIL recoup, five years after ‘defeat’?

By

Al Jazeera

On Thursday morning, US State Department official Ian McCary sat down in a blue suit, red tie and brown shoes for a question-and-answer session at The Washington Institute to mark the fifth anniversary of the “defeat” of ISIL (ISIS) in Syria.

The US-led coalition, along with its local partners, had on March 23, 2019 pushed the armed group out of Baghuz in Syria — a country where it once had its de facto capital, in Raqqa. “This was and remains a milestone in our continued efforts to ensure ISIS cannot resurge,” McCary said in his comments.

Just a day later, gunmen would barge into a packed concert hall in Moscow, Russia, spraying music lovers with bullets and setting the venue on fire, on the eve of that “milestone” victory.

More than 130 people have been killed, including three children, and over 100 others have been injured, in the worst such attack that Russia has witnessed in two decades.

ISIL’s Afghanistan arm — also known as the Islamic State in Khorasan Province, ISKP (ISIS-K) – swiftly claimed responsibility. The United States has said that its intelligence suggests the claim is accurate.

On ISKP social media channels, supporters have been celebrating the attack, according to analysts. It’s the latest sign, say strategic experts, of how ISIL has recovered from some of its setbacks in Syria and Iraq, and how Afghanistan has emerged as a vital staging ground for its growing ambitions.

“Should the attack in Russia be definitively attributed to ISKP, it would underscore the group’s resolve to align its actions with its pronounced objectives — targeting countries that play pivotal roles in the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and South and Central Asia,” said Amira Jadoon, assistant professor of political science at the South Carolina-based Clemson University, and co-author of the 2023 book, The Islamic State in Afghanistan and Pakistan: Strategic Alliances and Rivalries.

The Russia concert attack comes two months after suicide bombings in Kerman, Iran, killed more than 90 people and injured nearly 300 others. ISKP claimed responsibility for those attacks too.

While Russia — seen by ISIL as an oppressor of Muslims in Chechnya, Syria and Afghanistan (during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s) — and Shia-majority Iran have long been in the crosshairs of the armed group, there’s a broader strategic intent behind recent attacks too, said Jadoon.

“By directing its aggression towards nations such as Iran and Russia, ISKP not only confronts regional heavyweights but also underscores its political relevance and operational reach on the global stage,” she told Al Jazeera.

Yet analysts say that none of this would have been possible without the group’s success in building a safe base in Afghanistan — and actually bolstering its presence in that country even after its archenemy, the Taliban, took control of that nation in August 2021.

‘More breathing room’

At the height of its influence, ISIL controlled about a third of Syria and 40 percent of Iraq.

Faced with military pressure from a range of otherwise battling regional players — a US-led alliance, Russia and Iran — as well as the governments of those two countries, it lost 95 percent of that territory by the end of 2017. The March 2019 loss of Baghuz eliminated the group’s physical control of any town, city or region in Iraq or Syria.

Meanwhile, its Afghanistan affiliate, the ISKP was continuing to build its reputation as a deadly force: In May 2020, it was blamed for an attack on a maternity ward in Kabul that killed 24 people, including women and infants. Six months later, its fighters attacked Kabul University, killing at least 22 students and teachers.

Then, as the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan, ISKP sent a chilling message to its local nemesis and to the hurriedly departing US military, with devastating bombings at Kabul airport that killed at least 175 civilians and 13 US soldiers.

Since then, “ISKP in Afghanistan has grown in strength significantly”, said Kabir Taneja, a fellow at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation and author of the 2019 book, The ISIS Peril. Its attacks have spilled over the border into Pakistan too, where the group bombed an election rally last July, killing more than 50 people.

And the Taliban’s power grab in Afghanistan has helped, said Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Washington-based Wilson Center.

“ISIS-K may be a rival of the Taliban, but ISIS-K benefitted from the Taliban’s takeover, and also the US withdrawal,” Kugelman told Al Jazeera.

“The Taliban staged prison breaks that ended up freeing ISIS-K fighters,” he said. The collapse of the US-backed Afghan military gave the ISKP opportunities to seize weapons. And the Taliban’s lack of an air force has given the group a chance to take and hold ground.

“The absence of NATO air strikes — perhaps the most effective tactic used to manage the ISIS-K threat — gives the group more breathing room, especially because the Taliban can’t operate airpower,” Kugelman said. “In effect, ISIS-K has benefited from an enabling environment in Afghanistan, emboldening it to expand its focus far beyond its bastion areas.”

New ambitions

It isn’t just the ISKP that has grown its influence — the main ISIL has too, said Taneja.

“ISIS in its original regions of operations, Syria and Iraq, also sees [an] uptick in operational capabilities,” he told Al Jazeera. ISIL, Taneja said, today exists in a form of “suspension, where it’s ideologically powerful even if politically, tactically or strategically not that powerful any more.

“And how to combat this is the big question at a time when big power completion and global geopolitical churn has put counterterrorism on the back burner.”

As for the ISKP, the attacks in Russia and Iran are crucial for the group “to remain relevant, amplify its reputation and sustain its strategically diverse cadre”, Jadoon said, referring to the different reasons fighters are drawn to the group — from anger towards specific countries to opposition to the Taliban.

“In essence, orchestrating international attacks beyond the confines of Pakistan and Afghanistan is a deliberate tactic within ISKP’s strategy to globalise its campaign,” she said.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA
Moscow concert hall attack: How did ISIL recoup, five years after ‘defeat’?
read more