Afghanistan has been mired by chronic instability and conflict in its modern history, from the Cold War to the civil wars between the Mujahedeen and the Taliban. Most recently, Afghanistan has been the stage of the Afghan War (2001-2014) – fought between a coalition of US, NATO, and Afghan troops against the Taliban. International actors had maintained a peacekeeping force in Afghanistan until August 2021 when all troops were formally withdrawn following a peace deal brokered between the US and the Taliban. The withdrawal of all troops saw the Taliban violate the peace agreement, swiftly moving in to take control of the country and re-establish the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, reinstating Sharia Law.
The predominantly ethnic Pashtun Taliban emerged as a political force in 1996, when they took control of the capital Kabul and changed the name of the country from the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Their rule was characterized by the near-total exclusion of women from public life and strict application of Islamic law.
Since the 2021 takeover, the Taliban have reportedly summarily executed local government officials and state security personnel, as well as raided the homes of government officials, journalists, and human rights defenders. In addition, women’s rights have been significantly restricted.
Historically, Afghanistan was religiously diverse, but the vast majority of non-Muslims fled after the Taliban consolidated control of the government in 1996. As a result, current estimates suggest that 99.7% of the country are Muslims – the majority of whom are Sunni. A small proportion, estimated to be less than 1%, are followers of other religions, such as Hindus, Sikhs, Bahá’ís, Christians, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians. There are no estimates available for the number of non-religious or humanist individuals; those living in the country live in secrecy for fear of direct persecution.
| Constitution and government |
Education and children’s rights |
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals |
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constitution and government
Education and children’s rights
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Countries: Belgium, Brazil, Central African Republic, Congo, Republic of the, Ecuador, Estonia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Japan, Kosovo, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, São Tomé and Príncipe, Slovenia, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Taiwan, Ukraine
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Croatia, Egypt, Eswatini, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
No formal discrimination in education
Countries: Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Republic of the, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iceland, India, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Russia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Taiwan, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Uruguay
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
Countries: Comoros, Ethiopia, Gambia, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Niger, Philippines, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom
No religious tribunals of concern, secular groups operate freely, individuals are not persecuted by the state
Countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Congo, Republic of the, Czech Republic, Dominica, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Slovenia, Sweden, Taiwan, Uruguay, Venezuela
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Countries: Bahamas, Belgium, Czech Republic, Iceland, Jamaica, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition
Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious
This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.
The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination
Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others' rights, such as SRHR, women's rights, LGBTI+ rights.
May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others' rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)
Countries: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Chile, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Mali, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief
Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
Countries: Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Comoros, Eritrea, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
There is systematic religious privilege
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Moldova, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is state funding of at least some religious schools
Countries: Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Denmark, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Kosovo, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Switzerland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
State-funded schools offer religious or ideological instruction with no secular or humanist alternative, but it is optional
Countries: Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Italy, Kiribati, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Maldives, Nigeria, Oman, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Turkey
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Countries: Barbados, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana, Iraq, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia, Malta, Poland, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Uganda
Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Chad, China, Eritrea, Iran, Kuwait, Mauritania, Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is severely restricted
Countries: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Philippines, Russia, Rwanda, Samoa, Somalia, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted
Countries: Andorra, Armenia, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo, Republic of the, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mozambique, Niger, Paraguay, Poland, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, United States of America
Some concerns about political or media freedoms, not specific to the non-religious
Countries: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Austria, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, India, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Republic of, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state
State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Comoros, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.
Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
Official symbolic deference to religion
Countries: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Finland, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of, Laos, Latvia, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety
This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording "significant number of schools" is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.
Religious schools have powers to discriminate in admissions or employment
Countries: Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Equatorial Guinea, Finland, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Sri Lanka, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States of America, Zimbabwe
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the non-religious
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
Countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ghana, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Oman, Palestine, Paraguay, Qatar, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Countries: Comoros, Egypt, Haiti, Jamaica, Lebanon, Malaysia, Nigeria, Palestine, Philippines, Singapore, Turkey
‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
Countries: Australia, Austria, Barbados, Brazil, Cambodia, Finland, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Moldova, Montenegro, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Saint Lucia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Kingdom
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Countries: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Congo, Republic of the, Denmark, Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, North Korea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Venezuela, Viet Nam
State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Countries: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
There is an established church or state religion
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Finland, Georgia, Haiti, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Yemen, Zambia
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Countries: Cameroon, Dominica, Ethiopia, France, Ghana, Guinea, India, Jamaica, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
Countries: Argentina, Armenia, Belize, Cambodia, Chad, China, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Germany, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Palestine, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, Switzerland, Thailand, Uganda, United Kingdom
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Countries: Afghanistan, Egypt, Hungary, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Grenada, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Micronesia, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Samoa, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tonga, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Germany, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Oman, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Qatar, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of religion or belief
Countries: Argentina, Burundi, Canada, Eritrea, Haiti, Jordan, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Tonga
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar (Burma), Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Religious groups control some public or social services
Countries: Algeria, Argentina, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Denmark, Germany, Haiti, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States of America
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Countries: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
Countries: Argentina, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Italy, Pakistan, Peru, Rwanda, Samoa, Sweden, Switzerland
Religious control over family law or legislation on moral matters
Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
Countries: Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Maldives, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, United Arab Emirates
Some concerns about children's right to specifically freedom of religion or belief
This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.
Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe
State-funding of religious institutions or salaries, or discriminatory tax exemptions
Countries: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Eswatini, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Korea, Republic of, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Montenegro, Myanmar (Burma), Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Suriname, Switzerland, Thailand, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Countries: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Egypt, Eritrea, Georgia, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Palestine, Senegal, Somalia, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan
| Grave Violations |
| Severe Discrimination |
Constitution and government
As a newly declared “Islamic Emirate,” a religious leader will now serve as the ultimate authority on law and governance of the nation, based on the Taliban’s interpretation of Islam – derived from Deobandi strand of the Hanafi school of Islam.
On 7 September 2021, the Taliban announced an all-male caretaker government including an interior minister wanted by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as the reinstatement of the Ministry for the Enforcement of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (al-Amr bi al-Ma’ruf wa al-Nahi `an al-Munkir) – a ministry dedicated to the enforcement of the Taliban’s extreme interpretation of Islamic law.
Immediately following the Taliban takeover, it was reported that the Taliban were be planning to re-institute the 1964 Constitution. However, at the time of writing, no such attempts appear to have been made. Instead, the Taliban leadership has indicated that Sharia law governs Afghanistan, unofficially revoking the 2004 Constitution; any laws predating the Taliban takeover that do not conflict with Sharia law reportedly remain in effect. However, the Taliban leadership has not formally repealed laws that it deems inconsistent with Sharia law. Taliban representatives reportedly issue “guidelines” that are unevenly enforced across the country. As a result, the country does not have in place a clear and cohesive legal framework, judicial system, or enforcement mechanisms.
In September 2024, the leader of the Taliban, Hibatullah Akhundzada, reportedly called for closer cooperation between religious scholars and the government stating, “[t]he voice of the state and the pulpit must be unified for religion, the system, the nation, and the people to progress.”
The government’s national identity cards indicate an individual’s religion as well as nationality, tribe, and ethnicity. In the current political climate, members of religious minority groups fear being targeted as data on their religious affiliation (provided they told the truth) is in the hands of the Taliban government. Non-religious individuals report lying for such records to avoid identification and persecution.
Impunity
According to Human Rights Watch:
“Impunity for grave abuses has long been a problem in Afghanistan, where the current and previous governments have largely failed to hold officials accountable for rights violations or prosecuted pro-government warlords and militias for serious abuses. The Taliban claim that they hold members of their ranks, including commanders, accountable for abuses, but this has meant little in practice since Taliban officials have seldom considered many human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law as wrongful acts.”
Education and children’s rights
Historically, the primary focus of all schooling in Afghanistan has been instruction in Islam. According to the 2004 Constitution, the “state shall devise and implement a unified educational curriculum based on the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam, national culture, and in accordance with academic principles, and develop the curriculum of religious subjects on the basis of the Islamic sects existing in Afghanistan.”
In government-controlled schools, religious education was taught more than general education – this was particularly the case in areas where the Taliban held influence. In privately-run madrassas, the schooling was even more skewed, with the instruction almost entirely religious.
In the initial wake of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, much was unclear about the future of education in the country, with very little coherence in policy.
Analysis of Taliban educational policy documents dating to 2019 conducted by independent think tank ODI suggested that the Taliban’s first priority for education would be to:
“fulfil spiritual needs and development, in so far as education is essential for an Islamic society. Ensuring all forms of education respect and adhere to Islam is a central principle.”
Indeed, Article 83 of the above mentioned Taliban policy document reportedly reads:
“Teaching inappropriate and inaccurate subjects such as anti-jihad topics, immoral and anti-religion topics related to Muslim women, and subjects derived from the infidel laws, and other similar topics shall not be allowed.”
Upon the Taliban’s takeover in August 2021, girls were banned from obtaining a secondary education. Promises to allow girls back into segregated secondary schools in 2022 were not fulfilled. Some reports suggest that girls of all ages are allowed to attend segregated education at local madrasahs. Women teachers have been prohibited from teaching male students leaving a vacuum in many schools, where boys are taught by under-qualified male replacements.
According to Human Rights Watch’s research:
“The absence of female teachers — and the loss of their expertise – has contributed to some subjects not being taught, but the changes go beyond that. Subjects like sports, art, civics, and culture have often been replaced with additional hours dedicated to Quran and Islamic studies.”
In December 2022, Afghan news outlet Hasht-e-Subh, reported on a 2020 policy document that presented proposals to modify school curricula. While the authenticity of the document could not be verified, Human Rights Watch reports that the proposals outlined reflect experience reported by students participating in its recent research. Additionally, students report the promotion of so-called “islamic” views of women’s rights.
According to January 2024 media reports, the primary school curriculum is undergoing further revision, with the Taliban seeking to bring education into line with its interpretation of Sharia law. The precise details of the revisions were not available at the time of reporting.
The Taliban is also reported to be attempting to reshape the curricula of higher education establishments, removing subjects deemed “modern,” and leaving only religious subjects intact.
Corporal punishment
According to a report published by Human Rights Watch in December 2023, corporal punishment is becoming increasingly prevalent in schools. Students report being subjected to humiliation, beating, slapping, and foot whipping as forms of discipline. These practices illustrate the Taliban’s departure from the pre-existing legal framework. Under Article 39 of the 2008 Education Act all forms of physical and psychological punishment are prohibited.
Family, community and society
Persecution of non-religious people
Since the Taliban takeover in August 2021, Humanists International has received an unprecedented number of requests from non-religious Afghans seeking to flee for their safety. Their number far outstrips the number of applications received from any other country, and has, at its highest, accounted for at least 32% of all requests for help that the organization has received.
Humanists International has received numerous reports from reputable sources of the Taliban undertaking door-to-door searches across Afghanistan in the wake of the takeover; the organization understands that many individuals perceived to be hostile to the Taliban, atheists, or collaborators with foreign agents were summarily executed following such raids.
Non-religious Afghans report threats from friends and family, as well as direct targeting by members of the Taliban and their supporters. They report having lived a largely ‘closeted’ life in order to secure their safety, some daring to form groups of like-minded individuals on social networks (read more about their experiences in the ‘testimony’ section below). Inevitably those contacting Humanists International are seeking to flee Afghanistan to secure their long-term future.
Political insecurity and violence against religion and belief minorities
Article 2 of the 2004 Constitution explicitly states that followers of religions other than Islam are “free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of the law” implying that Islam is privileged in some way – even implying a trump on the law. What little freedom religion and belief minorities may have benefitted from previously, has now been eradicated.
The non-religious are rarely mentioned in reports on freedom of religion or belief in Afghanistan. From this, one could conclude that it is because holding a religion other than the dominant Sunni Islam is already so dangerous that admitting to holding no religious faith is too dangerous still.
Promotion of Virtue and Elimination of Vice
The Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and prevention of vice – a ministry dedicated to the enforcement of the Taliban’s extreme interpretation of Islamic law – was officially reinstated in September 2021. However, the policing of “vice and virtue” has been an ever-present threat in areas that remained under Taliban control.
During the rule of the former Taliban government, the ministry was one of the government’s most powerful offices, banning music and television, requiring women and teenage girls to wear a burqa and be accompanied by a male member of the family (mahram) when outdoors, and requiring men to grow beards. Beatings were a common punishment for failures to comply.
So-called “morality” officials have monitored residents’ adherence to Taliban-prescribed social codes regarding dress and behavior, including policing beard length, men’s attendance at Friday prayers, and the use of technology. Punishments for infractions since 2001 have ranged depending on those enforcing the rules in the respective province; while corporal punishment has been rare, the Taliban have been known to imprison residents or subject them to beatings.
In August 2024, the Taliban approved the Law on the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, which imposes a detailed list of repressive provisions on citizens in the country, particularly women. Among those provisions are:
- The prohibition of speaking, reciting, or singing in public;
- The requirement for women to be fully covered in public;
- The prohibition of a woman from looking at a man who is not a relative.
Women’s rights – towards codification of “Gender Apartheid”
According to the United Nations Special Procedures, the Taliban has,
“implemented a system of discrimination with the intention to subject women and girls to total domination so egregious, that the collective practices constitute gender persecution, a crime against humanity, and has necessitated a discussion about the codification of ‘gender apartheid.’”
According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Restrictions are becoming increasingly severe, quelling women and girls’ fundamental freedoms, effectively confining them to the four walls of their homes – to invisibility.”
In September 2021, the Taliban announced that women would not be able to attend university or work until it was possible to ensure segregation of the sexes and an “islamic environment.” The Taliban imposed a similar “temporary measure” when it came to power in 1996, which was not lifted until the US invasion ousted the Taliban government in 2001. Consistent with previous form, the Taliban have not permitted women to return to work.
To date, women face an almost total ban on appearing in public life. They are forbidden from public parks, gyms, and public baths. Beauty salons have reportedly been closed. Women are banned from traveling more than 78 km without a mahram, or male chaperone. Women may no longer work for domestic or international NGOS, nor may they work for the United Nations (except in health care, nutrition, and primary education). Women’s access to routine and emergency healthcare is also extremely limited.
In January 2024, the United Nations expressed concern at reports that “scores of women and girls in Afghanistan have been arbitrarily detained and subjected to ill-treatment since early January for allegedly violating the Taliban’s dress code for women.” In May 2022, the Taliban ordered that all women observe “proper hijab” – preferably by wearing a chadari (a loose black garment covering the body and face) – in public, and made male relatives responsible for enforcing the ban or face punishment.
Reports indicate that Taliban-imposed restrictions have dramatically affected the participation of women and girls in political, public, economic, and socio-cultural life, and led to a significant increase in spousal and intrafamily violence against women and girls. An August 2024 report conducted by the Centre of Information Resilience identified that at least 332 women have been killed by men since the Taliban takeover. A further 840 women and girls have reportedly been subjected to domestic violence since January 2022.
LGBTI+ Rights
In February 2018, Afghanistan adopted a new Penal Code that explicitly criminalized consensual same-sex relations. Under the Taliban’s strict interpretation of Sharia law, members of the LGBTI+ community accused of same-sex sexual relations may face the death penalty or extra-judicial killing.
Human Rights Watch reports that, since seizing control of Afghanistan, the Taliban and its supporters have carried out acts of violence against members of the LGBTI+ community with impunity.
Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values
Prior to the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan, freedom of expression was theoretically guaranteed in Afghanistan – unless it went against national interests or personal privacy – under Article 34 of the Constitution. In practice, however, such freedom had rigid margins and limitations, in particular when it ran up against religion.
Under Taliban rule, the space for freedom of expression, association, and assembly has shrunk significantly. Human rights defenders, activists, journalists, and peaceful protesters have faced growing restrictions, including violence, arbitrary arrest, unlawful detentions and torture.
Freedom of assembly
On 7 September 2021, the Taliban announced that protests, in general, are illegal unless approved ahead of time. Journalists covering some protests have said that Taliban officials have told them that reporting on protests is also now illegal.
Demonstrations against the Taliban’s implementation of restrictions on the rights of women and girls have been broken up, with protesters facing beatings.
Culture and artistic expression
Bans on technology and the playing of music have been in place in Taliban-controlled areas, such as Helmand or Kunduz provinces, for years; enforced by civilian “police.” Access to technology is also tightly controlled in order to prevent individuals watching videos or listening to music. On 26 August 2021, the Taliban declared that music had once again been banned across the country. The ministry for promotion of virtue and prevention of vice is responsible for enforcing the Taliban’s doctrine, including in the field of arts and culture. The Ministry has been responsible for imposing harsh censorship measures and perpetrating acts of violence.
In August 2020, the Taliban reportedly killed a local singer in Takhar Province as he returned home from a wedding. On 28 August 2021, celebrated Afghan folk singer Fawad Andarabi was shot dead at his home in the Andarab Valley in the northern Baghlan province. This incident occurred two days following the announcement by Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid that music was “forbidden in Islam’”
‘Apostasy’
According to the Article 1 of the Penal Code, punishments for Hudud and Qisas crimes, including ‘apostasy’ are inflicted in accordance with the Hanafi Jurisprudence of Sharia law, which includes the death penalty for non-believers and apostates.
With regard to non-believers and apostates, very few incidents are recorded, though this probably means that many converts and dissenters from Islam generally are simply too afraid to speak out. Assuming or defending any right to criticize, abandon or renounce Islam is considered a taboo even by many people who adhere to broadly democratic values.
Under some interpretations of Islamic law, converting from Islam to another religion is deemed ‘apostasy’ and considered an egregious crime. Those found guilty may be given three days to recant, or face death.
In September 2024, it was reported that the Taliban’s Minister of Higher Education – who has supported the issuance of fatwas calling for the killing of infidels – labeled social media users spreading criticism of the Taliban in pashto as “apostates.” His comments are reported to be in response to international criticism of the Taliban regime on social media. The minister reportedly urged the public not to trust those criticizing the Taliban in pashto claiming that social media users “show no respect for religious scholars, do not recognize the honor of the mujahid [Taliban fighters], and do not respect Islam and the Quran.” Some social media users reported fears that the use of the label “apostate” against those who criticize Taliban policy may be used as justification for violent reprisal.
‘Blasphemy’
‘Blasphemy’ – which can include anti-Islamic writings or speech – is a capital crime under the Hanafi interpretation of Islamic law. As a result atheists and freethinkers are forced to hide their beliefs and the only way they can express their thoughts is anonymously through social media. For males over age 18 and females over age 16 of sound mind, an Islamic judge may impose a death sentence for ‘blasphemy’. Similar to apostates, those accused of blasphemy are given three days to recant or face death.
In September 2024, the Taliban’s Ministry of Justice reportedly released a statement warning that any criticism of the Taliban’s laws will be deemed as criticism of Sharia, and will face Sharia-based punishment.
Testimonies
“I have been living like a fugitive since the day I spoke about leaving Islam and my beliefs. All my relatives and friends rejected me. Some relatives called my marriage and my son illegitimate and some even wanted to kill me. I lost my freedom and my job, and I also lost a child in my wife’s womb that was not yet born. I feared I would lose my life, my wife and my child as well.”
– Anonymous, August 2023
“Openly identifying as an atheist is akin to signing a death warrant. Islamic teachings propagate hostility towards those who reject the faith. Consequently, secrecy becomes a survival instinct for atheists. Even my own brother refrained from revealing his atheism for fear of reprisal.
“This silence left me feeling isolated, a sentiment compounded by the pervasive influence of Islam on every aspect of society. From education to festivals, Islamic principles dictated the norms, making it challenging to dissent. The struggle was not just intellectual but also practical; I found myself having to navigate a society filtered through the lens of Islam while harboring views that contradicted its teachings.
“At times, I had to play a charade, attending mosque prayers to avoid punishment and further isolation. It was a delicate dance between self-preservation and conformity.”
– Atal (allonym), January 2024
“My curious mind has led me to exploring questions about science and Humanist philosophy. Becoming an atheist as a result of my curiosity, and on some occasions, openly discussing scientific issues and evolution even with my closest friends has put me in trouble. In Afghanistan nothing ends without a reference to God. That reference to god always stopped me from further exploring things openly with people. So I had to explore and talk to likeminded people on social media and Facebook, with, of course, a pseudonym, and openly challenge them and openly ask questions to satisfy my curiosity. The problems I will be facing if my atheistic views become apparent will be too grave, not only from authorities but also from my work colleagues and even my family. When my colleagues go to the mosque to pray I have to go with them, to avoid suspicion or I may be brutally murdered.”
— Khalid
“As an atheist I’m facing constant problems with family, friends, and even in dealing with people at the university campus and the community at large. Having any beliefs outside of Islam or that of which is not compatible with Islam and its teachings are considered an unforgivable crime. Such a view is prevalent throughout society, family, friends and even at the university, which is supposed to be a place to question and doubt; Not to mention that such beliefs are systematically reinforced by the constitution and the state’s laws. Thus, I am closet atheist, and my Secular Humanist views are limited to social media and to myself alone. The environment in Afghanistan is suffocating for freethinkers and Humanists. There are two ways available to me and others like me: Either stay quiet for your entire life which in turn is an imposed punishment for a social being like humans, or voice your concern for equality, freedom of thought and expression publicly. But to what cost?”
— Arash Kargar (pseudonym)