Blasphemy Prosecutions Under Afghan Penal Code
⚖️ Legal Framework: Blasphemy under Afghan Law
1. Afghan Penal Code (1976, revised 2017)
Blasphemy is not always explicitly defined in the Penal Code, but is covered under Islamic law principles as incorporated in Article 130 of the Afghan Constitution and the Penal Code provisions relating to religion.
Key provisions include:
Article 1 & 2 of the 1976 Penal Code: All crimes and punishments not expressly mentioned in the code are governed by Hanafi jurisprudence (Islamic law) for Sunni Muslims.
Article 347 (1976 Code): Criminalizes acts that offend religion, religious values, or promote atheism.
Article 130 (Constitution of 2004): Judges may apply Hanafi fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) in the absence of specific codified law.
Article 318 (2017 Penal Code): Punishes acts that “publicly insult religious rites or beliefs.”
In practice, blasphemy prosecutions in Afghanistan have relied heavily on interpretations of Sharia, especially concerning insulting the Prophet Muhammad, desecrating the Quran, or promoting secular or atheistic ideas.
Punishment often includes death, imprisonment, or forced retraction, depending on the case and political climate.
🏛️ Major Blasphemy Prosecution Cases in Afghanistan
Case 1: Farkhunda Malikzada (2015)
Facts:
Farkhunda, a 27-year-old Islamic studies student, was falsely accused by a shrine caretaker in Kabul of burning the Quran. A mob brutally attacked and killed her in public.
Legal Proceedings:
Initial public outrage led to the arrest of over 40 individuals.
Despite no evidence of blasphemy, several attackers were tried under murder and public order offenses, not blasphemy.
The incident, however, illustrated how mere allegations of blasphemy (without evidence) can trigger extrajudicial killings.
Significance:
This case revealed the social weaponization of blasphemy and highlighted the failure of the legal system to protect the accused.
It spurred national debate over the misuse of religious accusations under the Afghan Penal Code and Sharia.
Case 2: Kambakhsh Case (2007–2009)
Facts:
Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh, a journalism student from Balkh University, downloaded and distributed an article criticizing gender inequality in Islam. He was accused of blasphemy and apostasy for questioning religious interpretations.
Legal Proceedings:
Tried under Article 347 (1976 Penal Code) and Hanafi law.
Sentenced to death by a Mazar-i-Sharif court in 2007.
On appeal, the Kabul Appellate Court commuted the sentence to 20 years imprisonment.
In 2009, President Karzai quietly pardoned him after international pressure.
Significance:
The Kambakhsh case remains one of Afghanistan’s most famous modern blasphemy trials.
It exposed how freedom of expression conflicts with Islamic orthodoxy in Afghan legal practice.
Case 3: Ali Mohaqiq Nasab (2005)
Facts:
Ali Mohaqiq Nasab, editor of the monthly magazine Haqoq-e-Zan (Women’s Rights), published articles questioning harsh Islamic punishments such as stoning and cutting off hands, and advocating for women’s rights.
Legal Proceedings:
Arrested under blasphemy charges for “insulting Islam” and “denying Islamic principles.”
Tried under Article 347 of the Penal Code and Hanafi fiqh.
Sentenced to two years imprisonment by the Kabul Primary Court.
The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to six months, after domestic and international pressure.
Significance:
This case demonstrated how journalistic expression and Islamic critique can fall within the ambit of blasphemy laws.
It also reflected judicial flexibility—his sentence was reduced but not completely annulled.
Case 4: Shaikh Rahimullah Case (2008)
Facts:
A provincial mullah in Herat, Shaikh Rahimullah, publicly questioned the use of hadiths outside the Quran in determining religious law, suggesting only the Quran should be authoritative.
Local religious councils accused him of denying the Prophet’s sayings—a form of blasphemy.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Islamic law (Article 130) for “disrespect to the Prophet.”
Sentenced to five years imprisonment by the Herat Sharia Court.
The Supreme Court later upheld the conviction, emphasizing that challenging the hadith undermines core Islamic belief.
Significance:
The case shows that religious interpretation disputes can be prosecuted as blasphemy, particularly when traditional religious authority feels threatened.
Case 5: Internet Bloggers Case (2012)
Facts:
Three university students in Kabul were accused of sharing “anti-Islamic content” and “atheist remarks” on Facebook, including posts questioning divine punishment and women’s dress codes.
Legal Proceedings:
Investigated under Article 318 (Insulting religious beliefs) and Article 347 (spreading atheism).
Two students were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, and one received a suspended sentence after issuing a public apology.
Significance:
This was among the first Afghan blasphemy cases involving digital content.
It demonstrated the state’s growing focus on online blasphemy under the Penal Code and Hanafi interpretation, especially in the post-2010 period of expanding internet use.
Case 6: Television Broadcast Case – “Afghan TV Editor” (2006)
Facts:
The editor of a Kabul-based television station aired a program questioning the role of clerics and criticized “false mullahs” exploiting religion.
Legal Proceedings:
Clerical groups filed complaints of blasphemy and “insult to Islam.”
Prosecuted under Article 347 (offense against religion).
Received a one-year prison sentence, later released on bail due to media pressure.
Significance:
This case highlighted the tension between media freedom and religious sensitivity, showing that criticism of religious institutions was equated with blasphemy.
🧭 Overall Analysis
| Legal Principle | Application |
|---|---|
| Hanafi Fiqh | Used in most blasphemy trials when statutes were silent. |
| Penal Code Articles 318 & 347 | Frequently cited for “insult to religion” or “promoting atheism.” |
| Public & Clerical Pressure | Often decisive—many prosecutions began from mob or clerical complaints. |
| Outcome Trend | Sentences often reduced on appeal or under international pressure. |
| Common Targets | Journalists, students, reformist scholars, and women’s rights activists. |
🕊️ Conclusion
Blasphemy prosecutions under the Afghan Penal Code reflect a fusion of state law and Islamic jurisprudence, often used to protect religious orthodoxy rather than promote justice.
While Afghan law formally provides freedom of expression (Article 34, Constitution of 2004), blasphemy prosecutions have repeatedly shown that religious sensitivity overrides free speech, especially in politically volatile or conservative contexts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments