What is the Taliban doing? Is it banning again today what it banned yesterday?

Over the past week, in both conventional and social media, we witnessed a fair number of routine reports "blowing up" about the Taliban's new exploits in Afghanistan. Judging by the content and the way the reports were made, the picture that emerges is one of a complete "blow-up," because we saw the same kind of reports over and over: for example, there was nothing new in the report "Taliban administration bans education for girls!" It is a report that has been made many times. For instance, it says nothing new compared with what was done before, and perhaps even contradicts what was reported earlier.

Isn't that so? We had previously read a great many reports that the Taliban had banned girls from receiving an education. Were those reports announcing something that had not yet happened? Was it that it had not been banned back then and is being banned only now?

We had tried then to learn the truth by going to Afghanistan ourselves, seeing it on the spot and talking with officials. We had obtained and shared the information that girls' education was not being banned, only regulated.

The present report is of course not a single-item report; it is a report about a somewhat more comprehensive Taliban madness. Even the headlines alone are enough, and more than enough, to make everyone whose attention is fixed on Europe jump: "In Afghanistan, the Taliban administration is bringing back slavery with its new penal code while banning education for girls. As the country is divided into classes, penalties will be applied according to class."

To tell the truth, even I, who have gone and seen it in person and am aware of the fantastical motivations of a media that does not even think of following any journalistic standard where Afghanistan and the Taliban are concerned, said "what do you mean?"

"BRINGING BACK SLAVERY!?", "dividing the country into classes!?", "applying penalties according to class!?"

I understood at first glance that the matter of girls' education was once again a customary media refrain about the Taliban, but where did these others come from?

On many websites and even in television news, it was written that the Taliban had banned dancing in the country as well as watching those who dance, and had laid down a ruling for the demolition of "places of immorality." As if that were not enough, a new penal code had supposedly defined the forms of violence too, for example "violence is free provided it does not cause a bone fracture or a tearing of the skin," while "child abuse and violence against children" would go unpunished.

"CAN'T FINISH PRAISING AFGHANISTAN!?"

Don't those who share these reports on social media also invite us to explain what we saw there, having gone to Afghanistan twice and relayed what we saw first-hand? Invite is hardly the word; they demand an account. Because we said let us not be content with hearsay, let us go and see on the spot and relay what we saw as it is, those who, without ever going there, hungrily gobble up the propaganda dishes set before them without questioning, accuse us of "not being able to finish praising Afghanistan."

Anyway, let us move on. What we saw and said first-hand about Afghanistan is that after the occupiers left there was no new vengeful violence in the country in the logic of a revenge, that a general amnesty was declared across the whole country, and that it has been implemented with great success for 5 years.

What we saw and said is that drug production and trade have been almost reduced to zero.

What we saw with our own eyes is that, for the first time in its 70-year history, peace and security have been established in every part of the country.

What we again saw and said is that, for the first time in 50 years, the country is experiencing an economic revival.

Moreover, contrary to the rumors about the education of girls, girls study up to the 6th grade, and after the 6th grade all girls who wish to can still study to the fullest at the madrasa and divinity faculty level, while the infrastructure for other professions and university education is being prepared. These are not praise; they are facts that the most minimal journalistic or scholarly honesty should see and relay. Those who begrudge Afghanistan even this much honesty evidently feel no discomfort at all about looking at the country with the eyes and hearts of those who have occupied it for 100 or 50 years. If, that is, they are aware of this.

THE SOURCE OF THE REPORT: SOROS-FUNDED RAWADARI

Let us come to the report in question. Of course I went after it. Naturally only to understand the nature of the matter, not to whitewash it; that is out of the question. The report's source is the "press statement on the Criminal Procedure Directive for Courts published by the Taliban," published on a page of an Afghan Ismaili Shiite opposition group called Rawadari, which is funded by Soros. But although everyone's source for the report was this statement, very few gave the statement any space.

I downloaded both this statement and the Criminal Procedure Directive for Courts that the Taliban issued over the signature of the Emir of the Islamic Emirate, Haibatullah Akhundzada, and read both from beginning to end.

First of all, let me state that neither in the Taliban's text nor in the press statement of the Rawadari organization, prepared to criticize this text, is there any mention of whether girls are educated or not. That is, this and many other subjects that are not in the text of the Rawadari organization, which is vehemently opposed to the Taliban, were added to the news texts when it was discussed in Turkey, in order to increase the piece's effect. In short, we are where we last left off on the education of girls; indeed, considerable progress has even been made in the preparations being carried out on this matter.

AS FOR THE OTHER SUBJECTS: WHERE IS THE JOURNALISTIC ETHIC?

I must say that the great majority of the subjects were pulled out of context within the text, cherry-picked, and based on distortion.

For example, the statement that "violence is free provided it does not cause a bone fracture or a tearing of the skin" while "child abuse and violence against children" go unpunished is one you could not pull out of this text even if you tried with tweezers. What kind of fantasy is this, for God's sake? Where could such a statement, contrary to reason, to logic, to Islam, to the Shariah, have come from?

When the Taliban is concerned, a great right arises for certain people to invent everything; there is no other explanation. In fact, if the most standard ethical rules of journalism and research were applied here, verifying these things would not be that difficult. But again, when it is Afghanistan, even this much journalistic ethic is not deemed necessary. You say whatever you have heard is true and spread the report.

STATEMENT BY TALIBAN SPOKESMAN ZABIHULLAH MUJAHID

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, answering the BBC's questions on this matter, explained the nature of the penal procedure regulations in question as follows: "The Islamic Emirate had judicial institutions during the struggle period as well, and for these courts there existed penal procedure regulations based on the principles of Shariah and fiqh. The said penal procedure regulations had a limited field of application in that period because wartime conditions prevailed in the country. Today, the necessity has arisen to address all legal matters comprehensively across Afghanistan. For this reason the said penal procedure regulations have been reviewed, and a new usulname has been prepared on the basis of Shariah and especially Hanafi fiqh. This regulation arose from a clear need."

"PUNISHMENT ACCORDING TO SOCIAL STATUS?"

The said penal procedure regulations (the reports circulating around them have produced intense debate, especially over the claim of "punishment according to social status" or that the country is "divided according to statuses." Against the claim that the Taliban builds its law on a "caste-like" class hierarchy, that is, that it prescribes different punishments on the basis of religious identity, sect, gender and social stratum, Mujahid categorically rejects this claim, saying the text in fact points to the principles of recidivism and grading of criminality that are common in criminal law.

That is, what is meant is the difference, which exists in every kind of law, between those who have made committing crimes a habit and people who have committed a crime for the first time. Isn't there at least this much of a difference in our country, in Europe, in every kind of positive law?

What kind of mind, what kind of ill intent translates this as class or status distinction? It cannot be a simple translation error, of course? Besides, those whose minds were boggled by this translation have already taken off and gone. This is a matter that will take a bit more discussion; that is, we will continue.