Fighting for the Rule of Law in Afghanistan | Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee

If Afghanistan is going to develop a civil society that can function over the long term, there must be rule of law. The country faces a challenge in ensuring that human rights and basic criminal law functions according to international norms, but this is not necessarily a unique or insurmountable problem. Terry Glavin writes in the Calgary Herald:

Afghanistan's 2004 Constitution demands that no law must offend the Qur'an. But the Constitution also requires that all laws must be consistent with international human rights standards and conventions. It's not going to be an easy fit, Faizi concedes. But it doesn't have to be as fractious as one might think.

Where the "West" gets it wrong is in a failure to appreciate that like the English common law tradition, sharia is a vast body of laws, most of which are inoffensive to universal human rights norms. But the semiliterate political appointees that often end up as Afghan judges also get it wrong. Sharia forbids a range of practices -- forced marriage, for one -- that are commonly presumed to be authorized by the Qur'an.

Further to the Koran's injunction that "there is no compulsion" in Islam, the Afghan Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the presumption of innocence, and equality between men and women.

There will be nasty conflicts in the construction of a progressive human rights regime in a terrain of backward interpretations of sharia: "The Islamic extremists, they will react against us," Faizi said. But for the moment, the Afghan people face a more formidable challenge.

"The problem is that mostly there is no fair trial," Faizi told me. "What is really important is the practice of law. We need very strong evidences in order to find a person guilty, but it does not work like this."

Afghanistan's 2004 Constitution demands that no law must offend the Qur'an. But the Constitution also requires that all laws must be consistent with international human rights standards and conventions. It's not going to be an easy fit, Faizi concedes. But it doesn't have to be as fractious as one might think.

Where the "West" gets it wrong is in a failure to appreciate that like the English common law tradition, sharia is a vast body of laws, most of which are inoffensive to universal human rights norms. But the semiliterate political appointees that often end up as Afghan judges also get it wrong. Sharia forbids a range of practices -- forced marriage, for one -- that are commonly presumed to be authorized by the Qur'an.

Further to the Koran's injunction that "there is no compulsion" in Islam, the Afghan Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the presumption of innocence, and equality between men and women.

There will be nasty conflicts in the construction of a progressive human rights regime in a terrain of backward interpretations of sharia: "The Islamic extremists, they will react against us," Faizi said. But for the moment, the Afghan people face a more formidable challenge.

"The problem is that mostly there is no fair trial," Faizi told me. "What is really important is the practice of law. We need very strong evidences in order to find a person guilty, but it does not work like this."