Taliban Justice Compared With Isis Justice System
🔷 1. Introduction
Both the Taliban and ISIS (Daesh) claim to implement Islamic law (Sharia) in their respective territories. However, their interpretations, practices, procedures, and goals vary significantly:
| Feature | Taliban Justice | ISIS Justice |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Deobandi Sunni Islam, Hanafi jurisprudence | Salafi-Jihadi interpretation of Sharia |
| Focus | Governance, order, and local control | Caliphate, ideological purity, global jihad |
| Judicial Procedure | Informal courts, limited evidence use | Harsh courts, rapid proceedings, often no defense |
| Punishments | Corporal, capital punishments under Sharia | Frequent public executions, amputations, stoning |
| Due Process | Minimal, but may involve mediation | Virtually none; often based on ideological accusations |
⚖️ Key Differences in Practice Through Case Law
✅ Case 1: Taliban Justice – Local Dispute Resolution in Kunduz (2019)
Background:
A land dispute between two families in Kunduz province was brought before a Taliban shadow court, as the formal government court system was inaccessible or distrusted.
Procedure and Outcome:
The Taliban judge, a local mullah, heard both sides.
Applied Hanafi jurisprudence; witnesses from the community were accepted.
A decision was rendered within days, based on traditional Islamic rulings.
No written record or appeal system was available.
Significance:
Shows community-based justice with religious authority.
Taliban emphasize speed and simplicity, often gaining support for efficiency.
✅ Case 2: ISIS Justice – Execution for Apostasy in Raqqa (2015)
Background:
A schoolteacher in Raqqa was accused of "apostasy" after allegedly criticizing ISIS curriculum and promoting secular education.
Procedure and Outcome:
Arrested by ISIS morality police (Hisbah).
No formal trial or defense permitted.
Executed publicly in a square within 48 hours of arrest.
Body displayed as a deterrent.
Significance:
Illustrates ISIS's zero tolerance for dissent or deviation from its ideology.
Justice is a tool for control and terror, not resolution or rehabilitation.
✅ Case 3: Taliban Court – Theft Case in Helmand (2020)
Background:
A young man was caught stealing livestock. The Taliban court investigated the complaint.
Procedure and Outcome:
Accused admitted to theft.
The Taliban court applied tazir (discretionary punishment).
Punishment was 30 lashes, delivered publicly, and restitution of property.
The case was used as a public lesson but without execution.
Significance:
Demonstrates measured punishment under Taliban justice.
Unlike ISIS, Taliban often apply less extreme interpretations and allow for leniency, especially if repentance is shown.
✅ Case 4: ISIS Justice – Mass Execution of Tribal Leaders in Mosul (2014)
Background:
Several Sunni tribal leaders resisted ISIS authority and refused to pledge allegiance.
Procedure and Outcome:
Accused of “rebellion against the Caliphate.”
No judicial hearing.
Over 40 tribal elders executed in a single day.
Publicly framed as a hudood punishment for betrayal.
Significance:
Reveals ISIS’s use of ideologically motivated collective punishment.
Punishment served more as political repression than justice.
✅ Case 5: Taliban Family Law Decision – Forced Marriage Complaint in Ghazni (2018)
Background:
A girl was forcibly married to an older man by her family. She escaped and appealed to the Taliban court.
Procedure and Outcome:
Taliban court accepted her claim.
Found the marriage invalid under Hanafi Islamic rules due to lack of consent.
Ordered annulment and protection from family retaliation.
Significance:
Taliban courts sometimes protect women’s rights within the limits of Sharia.
Contrasts with ISIS, which typically enforced forced marriages, especially with foreign fighters.
✅ Case 6: ISIS Forced Marriage and Enslavement – Yazidi Women Case (2014–2017)
Background:
Thousands of Yazidi women were captured in Sinjar and distributed among ISIS fighters as slaves or “wives.”
Procedure and Outcome:
ISIS issued a fatwa justifying slavery of non-Muslim women.
No legal defense or judicial protection was allowed.
Women were bought, sold, and raped under claimed "Sharia" rulings.
Significance:
Represents gross distortion of Islamic law for ideological and military purposes.
No legitimate judicial framework—only weaponized theology.
🔍 Comparative Summary of Case Law
| Category | Taliban Approach | ISIS Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Theft | Corporal punishment + restitution | Amputation, often without proper trial |
| Apostasy | Rarely executed; handled with caution | Immediate execution; public and brutal |
| Marriage | Some protection if consent violated | Forced marriages common; no legal recourse |
| Dispute Resolution | Community-based mediation + Sharia | Suppression of dissent; no civil resolution |
| Slavery & Gender | Opposed to slavery; traditional gender roles | Justified sex slavery of non-Muslims |
| Trial Rights | Some form of trial; religiously framed | Almost no due process; punishment-first model |
🧾 Legal Philosophy Differences
⚖️ Taliban Justice:
Hanafi jurisprudence forms the foundation.
Dispute resolution favored; often negotiates and mediates.
Justice used to legitimize political authority among locals.
Can be adaptive within limits of conservative Islam.
⚖️ ISIS Justice:
Rooted in Salafi-jihadi extremism.
Literalist and militant use of Quranic texts.
Emphasizes fear, obedience, and ideological conformity.
Justice used as a tool of terror and global propaganda.
🔚 Conclusion
While both the Taliban and ISIS claim to administer Islamic justice, their philosophy, implementation, and objectives diverge sharply:
The Taliban use Islamic justice primarily to maintain social order and reinforce legitimacy among Afghan communities, with elements of flexibility and pragmatism.
ISIS, in contrast, used justice as a weapon of terror, designed to dominate, purify, and expand a transnational ideological project, with no tolerance for dissent or diversity.
These case studies demonstrate that although both systems operate under the banner of Sharia, the methodology and humanity (or lack thereof) within their justice systems are profoundly different.
RELATED Blog
0 comments