Absurdity of Afghanistan's Constitution

Submitted by Prashant, Feb 3, 2019 at 15:12

Dear Dr Pipes,

I heard that the US was currently holding talks with the Talebans. I cannot even comprehend what will be the purpose of these talks but there are repercussions all around these talks. India, for example, has requested that any agreement between the Taleban and US should maintain the 'constitutional structure' of Afghanistan. I was wondering why would India a secular democracy like to maintain the existing constitutional structure of Afghanistan because Afghanistan's constitution --whatever it is-- in my opinion could not be worth preserving.

I will continue with my triple theme: 1) Absence of democracy in the Islamic world is the primary cause of troubles in it 2) The non-Islamic world should judge the Islamic world not by Islamic standards but by modern shared world standards and 3) When we see something amiss in the Islamic world we should tell them politely but firmly.

It did not take me too long to get to a copy of Afghanistan's constitution ratified in 2004 by Hamid Karzai and over 500 delegates representing all tribes and people of Afghanistan. Like all good constitutions this constitutions borrows the phrase 'We the People". Although before it comes to this phrase, it declares that every one in Afghanistan is a good pious Muslim and deeply believes in Allah. Reading between the lines, the constitution leaves no room for even atheism. And for our leftist, socialist, communist, and liberal friends. I am so glad that President Trump disallowed Nancy Pelosi's trip to Afghanistan. Friends keep friends away from the harms way and there is no room for diversity-minded Pelosi in Afghanistan.

But the Afghanistani constitution wastes no time after the phrase 'we the people". It continues with its first and second articles. They are:

ARTICLE ONE:
Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

ARTICLE TWO:
The sacred religion of Islam is the religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Followers of
other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their
religious rituals.

I do not know if the tribes that ratified this constitution included the 'only Jew' of Afghanistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zablon_Simintov) or whether the last few hundred Hindus and Sikhs alive in Afghanistan were invited to the constituent assembly and if they were invited why did they ratify the constitution.

If I say that I should not waste my time discussing Afghanistan's constitutional structure, I will be insulting that country. Every country is worthy of respect and attention. But if I study and discuss it, I find that by my standards, it is absurd. Non-separation of Church and State, harms both the Church and State. Making a country bound to religion automatically makes it undemocratic. Undemocratic countries tend to fall into cycles of violence, and murders and mayhem. Thus, in my view, is the future of Afghanistan and I need to tell tehm politely and firmly.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".