Did anyone catch this a few months ago? The Swiss paper Die Weltwoche published the new Layeha (book of rules) for the Mujahideen, basically the Taliban code of conduct. It’s mostly mundane practicalities:
3. Mujahideen who protect new Taliban recruits must inform their commander.
6. If a Taliban fighter wants to move to another district, he is permitted to do so, but he must first acquire the permission of his group leader.
9. Taliban may not use Jihad equipment or property for personal ends.
11. Mujadideen may not sell equipment, unless the provincial commander permits him to do so.
They’re running a tight ship over there. Any army worth its salt knows how to organize itself and keep discipline. There’s even some measure of protection for those who might otherwise incur the undisciplined wrath of the Taliban rank and file:
14. If someone who works with infidels wants to cooperate with Mujahideen, he should not be killed. If he is killed, his murderer must stand before an Islamic court.
And they have mundane moral standards like anyone else:
15. A Mujahid or leader who torments an innocent person must be warned by his superiors. If he does not change his behaviour he must be thrown out of the Taliban movement.
(Although you do wonder, given what we know about them and what they’re fighting for, who exactly counts as “innocent” and who doesn’t.)
16. Mujahideen are not allowed to take young boys with no facial hair onto the battlefield or into their private quarters.
So far, so reasonable. But things get more interesting around rule 24:
24. It is forbidden to work as a teacher under the current puppet regime, because this strengthens the system of the infidels. True Muslims should apply to study with a religiously trained teacher and study in a Mosque or similar institution. Textbooks must come from the period of the Jihad or from the Taliban regime.
This shows their wish to smother secular knowledge, including the banning of standard textbooks.
25. Anyone who works as a teacher for the current puppet regime must recieve a warning. If he nevertheless refuses to give up his job, he must be beaten. If the teacher still continues to instruct contrary to the principles of Islam, the district commander or a group leader must kill him.
In other words, anyone teaching in a secular fashion, which is any teacher working for the state, should be stopped, if necessary by murder. If they are to brainwash the coming generations – or as they might see it, prevent the infiltration of the poisonous sacrilegious ideas of the degenerate Western infidels – then this is understandable.
26. Those NGOs that come to the country under the rule of the infidels must be treated as the government is treated. They have come under the guise of helping people but in fact are part of the regime. Thus we tolerate none of their activities, whether it be building of streets, bridges, clinics, schools, madrases (schools for Koran study) or other works. If a school fails to heed a warning to close, it must be burned. But all religious books must be secured beforehand.
This is strikingly alien to us, and what is shocking is the blend of reasonableness, efficiency and fundamentalism. For any of the bizarre Islamophile “socialists” out there who romanticize this kind of behaviour as legitimate resistance, make no mistake: theirs is not an enlightened anti-imperialist struggle. It is a struggle to impose a primitive inflexible dogma on the Afghan people, thereby rejecting all of the acheievements of the past 300 years: freedom of the press, freedom of expression, secular education, equality for women, and so on, the absolute minimum universal values that a socialist should be defending, I would’ve thought. But, alas, socialists have forgotten about universal values and have become trapped in the contradictions of multiculturalism and relativism. That is, there isn’t really any such thing as socialism any more. The word is used for historical and biographical reasons, not because of the continuity of principles.
Interest post, a couple of points -
It’s interesting that this fundamentalist regime with zero tolerance for women’s rights and non-religious teaching thinks homosexuality is fine.
Also, er bit of a straw man characterisation of Socialism – ok, so it’s not exactly in the political ascendency, but many people subscribe to the ideals – i.e. anti-globalisation movements and western resistance to corporate power.
andrewmu, you’re right to pick up on my attack on socialism. My conclusion that socialism doesn’t really exist anymore is not very well supported in the argument. It is a straw man characterization in that it attacks a type of socialist and then takes that type to be a description of most socialists, which is stereotyping I suppose.
However, the left intellectuals and activists have, in general and on the average, followed a trajectory towards cultural relativism and identity politics, and away from Enlightenment values and universalism (where an Arab woman’s rights are held to be equal to a western woman’s, no matter what the local culture).
And I’m yet to be convinced that the anti-globalization movement is not the relativist type of leftism. If globalization can potentially bring all of humanity into closer relationships, I would’ve thought it would be in line with universalist socialists.
i would like to link this entry from my blog page “put an end to war” at livejournal.com
http://putyourendtowar.livejournal.com
putyourendtowar