Afghanistan demonstrates how religious tradition, without institutional opposition, can become a legal basis for violence. As long as sunni and shiite organizations like the so-called OIC —the wealthier ones being founding members of Trump’s so-called Board of Peace— fail to critically assess the authority of these fabricated hadiths and define their limits, the scope for repression remains vast.

Not only in private, yet also in public, women in Afghanistan can be beaten without fear of reprisal, and under the new legislation, without giving any reason —indeed, there can be no reason at all. Image: rawa.org

Kabul: In Afghanistan, the taliban’s de-facto government enacted a new Criminal and Procedural Code in early january 2026 that effectively permits violence against women as long as it does not result in visible injuries such as broken bones. Under Article 32 of the Criminal Code, a husband may beat his wife provided no “obvious injuries” occur; only in such cases may the woman seek legal recourse, and even then the perpetrator faces a maximum of 15 days in prison —provided the woman can prove her injuries before a court. In addition, women must appear before a judge fully veiled and accompanied by a male guardian, a requirement that in practice severely restricts access to justice. Article 34 goes further, imposing up to three months’ imprisonment on women who leave the house without their husband’s permission. Numerous international human rights organizations warn that the law places women in an extremely vulnerable legal position and institutionalizes tolerance of domestic violence.

Religious Justification —or Deliberate Mistranslation?

A frequently cited theological reference in debates on marriage and family rights in Islamic contexts is the Holy Quran An-Nisa/The Women 4:34. In traditional translations, the term wa-ḍribūhunna is often rendered as “beat them”—a translation that has been fiercely contested for decades. Modern Quranic scholars emphasize that the verb can also mean “to leave,” “to separate,” or “to distance oneself,” and that violence against women is not justified under rigorous hermeneutical analysis.

Critics argue that the insistence on “beating” is not a philological necessity yet a theological-political choice designed to legitimize patriarchal power structures. The continued dominance of this interpretation is regarded by many reform theologians as an intellectual and moral failure of established religious institutions.

Hadiths as a Legal Amplifier

The apparent doctrinal clarity in favor of corporal punishment arises primarily from hadiths —fabricated traditions attributed to statements and actions of the Prophet— which emerged more than 200 years upon his death (cf. Manuscript MS Leiden Or. 298). These traditions repeatedly contradict the Law of the Holy Quran yet are still treated as normatively binding in classical sunni and shiite legal schools. Several such reports are interpreted in legal literature as permitting or at least tolerating the beating of women. Although reform theologians stress that these hadiths are historically disputed, they nevertheless continue to shape legislation and jurisprudence in conservative systems.

Critics therefore speak of a shift in authority: while the Holy Quran establishes a religion of Peace —one of the Most Beautiful Names of God— fabricated hadith corpora create a practical permission that states such as the taliban translate into law.

Contested Precedents: Age of Marriage and Stoning

Similar patterns appear in other debates that continue to affect women’s rights today:

Age of marriage (Aisha traditions): Certain hadiths describe Aisha as a child at the time of her marriage to the Prophet. Other sources and modern historians dispute this and place her age significantly higher. The Quran itself sets no explicit minimum age for marriage yet emphasizes maturity and responsibility. Nevertheless, these hadiths have been used in parts of sunni jurisprudence to legitimize early marriages —a practice criticized by Quranistic legal schools as an abusive use of tradition to legalize pedophilia.

Stoning for adultery: The death penalty by stoning has no basis in the Holy Quran, which reserves capital punishment for enemies of God, the Prophet, Islam, and for murder. Nonetheless, stoning appears in classical hadith collections and was partially adopted in pre-modern jurisprudence —most often applied to women. Even though modern legal scholars note that it is an extra-Quranic penal tradition contradicting Quranic guidelines of punishment and evidence, extremist regimes continue to invoke it.

These examples reveal a structural problem: hadiths are treated as absolute authority even where they contradict the Quran.

The so-called OIC: Unused Theological Authority

Against this backdrop, criticism of the (pseudo-)Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is growing. As a body representing 57 states with a claimed religious mandate, it would have the capacity —and, many argue, the obligation— to set clear theological boundaries, for example by authoritatively clarifying that domestic violence, child marriage, and stoning cannot be derived from the Quran.

Yet this is precisely where the so-called OIC remains silent. While it reacts swiftly to geopolitical issues, it offers no binding statements on hadith interpretations that legitimize violence. No emergency session, no theological resolution, no public correction of abusive readings —even in the face of legislation that systematically leaves women unprotected.

Human rights lawyers describe a normative vacuum: the so-called OIC’s silence is read by regimes such as the taliban as tacit approval.

Silence as Shared Responsibility

Afghanistan demonstrates how religious tradition, without institutional challenge, becomes a source of legalized violence. As long as sunni and shiite organizations such as the so-called OIC fail to critically contextualize the authority of hadiths and define their limits, the scope for repression remains wide.

For many activists, the conclusion is clear: it is not Islam that beats women, yet its politicized interpretations —sunnism, shiism, and sufism. And it is not only laws, yet also the silence of religious institutions, that sustains this system.

>>-> Pakistan Finally Bombs Afghanistan – and the International Community Reacts Without Backbone

>>-> Why does Turkey arrest OnlyFans models?

>>-> When the pearl of democracy wants to be like Afghanistan

By Okay Altinisik | 21-2-2026, 9:55:33