Politics
US and Israel’s War with Iran: Preemptive Strike or War of Choice? Global Risks, Regime Change, and Middle East Crisis
The decision by the United States and Israel to plunge into a new war with Iran has pushed the global landscape toward extremely dangerous and unpredictable consequences. Israel has attempted to justify its attack by describing it as a “preemptive action.” However, evidence suggests that this strike was not carried out in response to an imminent threat, as the term “preemptive” implies. In reality, they chose to fight this war a war of choice. The United States and Israel likely calculated that Iran’s Islamic government is currently extremely weak. The government is not only facing a severe economic crisis but is also dealing with the aftermath of a harsh crackdown on Iranian protesters. Additionally, Iran’s defense system was reportedly badly damaged following last summer’s conflict with Israel. The United States and Israel appear to have concluded that this opportunity should not be wasted. This action is also another heavy blow to the already fragile structure of international law. In their statements, President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Iran poses a threat to their countries (the United States and Israel), while Trump even described Iran as a “global threat.” Certainly, Iran’s Islamic government is their staunch adversary, but it is difficult to understand how the legal justification of self-defense applies in a situation where two major powers (Israel and the United States) stand on one side and Iran on the other. War is a political act. Once armed conflict begins, it becomes extremely difficult to control. That is why leaders must have clear objectives. Netanyahu has, for decades, viewed Iran as Israel’s most dangerous enemy. For him, this is a major opportunity to inflict maximum damage on Tehran’s government and military capabilities. General elections are scheduled in Israel later this year, and Netanyahu believes that whenever Israel chooses the path of war, it strengthens his political position. On the other hand, Donald Trump’s objectives tend to shift over time. Last January, he assured Iranian citizens protesting in Iran that “help is coming.” However, at that time, much of the U.S. Navy was engaged in efforts to remove Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro from power and arrest him, limiting Trump’s military resources and options. A few weeks ago, when the United States was deploying two aircraft carriers to the Middle East, Trump spoke extensively about the dangers of Iran’s nuclear ambitions — despite having declared last summer, following U.S. bomber strikes on Iran, that Iran’s nuclear program had been “wiped off the face of the earth.” The Iranian government has consistently denied seeking nuclear weapons. However, it has enriched uranium to levels that have no use in a peaceful nuclear power program. At the very least, it appears that Iran wants to keep the option of building a nuclear bomb open. Nevertheless, Israel and the United States have not presented any evidence that Iran was on the verge of doing so. In a video message, Trump told the Iranian people that their “time for freedom” is near. Netanyahu made a similar statement on Saturday, suggesting that the current war could provide the Iranian people with an opportunity to overthrow their government. But that is far from certain. There is no precedent for regime change being achieved through airstrikes alone. In 2003, Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq was toppled only as a result of a large-scale ground invasion led by the United States not merely airstrikes. In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi’s government in Libya fell only because rebel forces received sustained air support from NATO and several Arab states. In both cases, however, the outcome was state collapse. Civil wars erupted, and thousands were killed. Libya remains a failed state, while Iraq is still grappling with the consequences of the U.S. invasion and the widespread bloodshed that followed. Even if this were to become the first instance in which the United States successfully topples a government using air power alone, there is no reason to believe that Iran’s current Islamic government would be replaced by a liberal democracy that respects human rights. No credible alternative government in exile currently exists. Over nearly half a century, Iran’s ruling system has developed a complex political structure based on a mixture of ideology, corruption, and the ruthless use of force when necessary. Last month, the Iranian government clearly signaled that it was prepared to kill protesters. Iran’s hardline security forces have previously complied with orders to shoot and kill hundreds of their own citizens for challenging the existing system and demanding freedom. Perhaps the United States and Israel are attempting to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel views its capacity for targeted killing as a strategic tool. But Iran’s Islamic government is a different matter. It is not merely an armed group or movement; it governs a state. It is not a one-man show. Even if Supreme Leader Khamenei were killed, he would be replaced immediately — most likely by another cleric backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, who would continue defending the government against domestic and foreign threats with a clear strategy. Trump reportedly offered them immunity in exchange for surrender, but otherwise threatened certain death. There is little chance that the Revolutionary Guards would be tempted by such an offer. In the ideology of the Islamic Republic and within Shiite Islam, “martyrdom” is regarded as a form of enduring life. Trump tends to see politics and everyday life primarily through the lens of transactions and business, as described in his book “The Art of the Deal.” However, when dealing with Iran, the power of ideology and belief cannot be ignored and that is a force that is extremely difficult to measure. The current crisis has been unfolding since the beginning of this year, when the United States began shifting its military focus toward the Middle East. At that time, there were indications that Iran’s Islamic leadership believed war might be inevitable, prompting them to initiate indirect talks with Washington. Iranian leaders do not trust the United States or Israel. During his first term, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which had limited Iran’s nuclear program and was considered a major achievement of the Obama administration. Recently, there were signs that Iran might be willing to accept a “JCPOA II”-type agreement to buy time. However, it appears that the United States was also demanding strict limits on Iran’s missile program and an end to its support for regional allies opposed to Israel and the United States. For Iran, these demands were unacceptable, as they would amount to surrendering to the United States and Israel. Abandoning its missiles and regional allies would effectively pave the way for regime change. Iran’s leaders are now likely calculating how to survive this war, how to emerge from it, and how to manage its consequences. Meanwhile, neighboring countries — including Saudi Arabia — are deeply concerned about the uncertain and potentially far reaching outcomes of today’s events. Given the Middle East’s capacity to generate instability, and with the outbreak of yet another intense conflict, the existing instability in the region and the wider world — already turbulent, violent, and dangerous — is likely to deepen further.
By Real content8 months ago in Chapters
Will Pakistan be able to achieve its goals by attacking Afghanistan, or will further concerns arise?
Pakistan carried out airstrikes on Friday in Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, as well as in the key cities of Kandahar and Paktia near the Pak-Afghan border. Pakistani officials claimed that defensive targets were struck in these locations. Although Pakistan has previously conducted airstrikes inside Afghanistan, this is the first time during the recent tensions between the two countries that major cities such as Kabul and Kandahar have been targeted. Along with Kabul, Kandahar is a central city where the core political and military leadership of the Afghan Taliban government is based. The airstrikes came at a time when Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif stated that “our patience has run out.” Addressing the Taliban government, he said, “It is now open war between us.” In a post on the social media platform X, he wrote that Pakistan had made every effort to normalize the situation directly and through friendly countries, and had pursued extensive diplomacy. Afghan government officials claimed that more than 20 civilians were killed in the Pakistani airstrikes, a figure later confirmed by independent sources. Tensions remain high on both sides of the long Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and security forces are on high alert. Iran has offered to mediate to reduce tensions between the two countries, while the United Nations and several friendly nations have urged both sides to de-escalate and engage in dialogue. However, Kabul and Islamabad do not appear immediately willing to do so, and the core issue underlying the tensions remains unresolved—namely the matter of the Pakistani Taliban, or Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Pakistan has long demanded that the Afghan government prevent its territory from being used for terrorism against Pakistan. Islamabad alleges that the leadership of militant groups carrying out attacks inside Pakistan is sheltering in Afghanistan. The Afghan government denies these allegations, maintaining that its territory is not being used for terrorist operations against any other country. In such circumstances, how might Pakistan’s strategy of expanding the scope of airstrikes to Kabul and Kandahar affect the current tensions between the two countries? Can Pakistan achieve its objectives through this approach, or does it risk further escalation?
By Real content8 months ago in Chapters
Pakistan vs Afghanistan Military Strength 2025: Full Comparison After Border Clashes
Tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan have reached a peak following border clashes on Thursday night and recent Pakistani Air Force strikes inside Afghanistan. Both countries have claimed to have killed dozens of each other’s soldiers, seized border posts, and inflicted heavy damage on military targets. Pakistan has named its ongoing military operations against Afghanistan Operation “Ghazab-ul-Haq.” The United Nations, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and several other Muslim countries have urged the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan to exercise restraint. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif, in a post on X, warned Afghanistan’s interim government: “Our patience has run out. Now there will be an open war between us. Pakistan’s army has not come from across the seas. We are your neighbors and we know your reality.” Similar statements have also been issued by Taliban spokespersons and other Afghan leaders, threatening retaliation and war. Many are now asking: what is the military strength of the two countries? Military experts say there is a significant difference between the military capabilities of Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban. According to Global Firepower, in 2025 the world’s most powerful militaries included the United States, Russia, and China. Among 145 countries ranked, Pakistan was placed 12th — making it the 12th strongest military power in the world. Pakistan’s armed forces are equipped with nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the Afghan Taliban lack sufficient military resources and face many challenges. Air Force: A Key Component of Pakistan’s Military Strength Pakistan allocated more than 2.55 trillion rupees (approximately $9 billion) for its armed forces in fiscal year 2025–26. Pakistan’s armed forces include approximately 1.31 million army personnel, 110,000 navy personnel, and 78,000 air force personnel. Regarding air power, the Pakistan Air Force has 11 squadrons. Each squadron typically consists of 17 to 18 fighter jets. According to Global Firepower data, Pakistan has a total of 1,399 aircraft. Of its 418 combat aircraft, 328 are fighter jets and 90 are bombers. The most effective weapons of the Pakistan Air Force are its two fighter jets: the American-made F-16 and the Chinese-assisted JF-17 Thunder. The JF-17 was developed to be a lightweight, all-weather, day-and-night capable fighter jet. It was built at the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex in Kamra in collaboration with China’s Chengdu Aircraft Industry. Beyond fighter jets, Pakistan possesses 64 transport aircraft, 565 trainers, 4 tanker fleets, and 430 helicopters, including 57 attack helicopters. It operates 116 air bases. Pakistan’s Land Forces According to Global Firepower, Pakistan has a total of 2,672 tanks. The Al-Khalid is Pakistan’s modern tank, produced domestically with assistance from China and Ukraine. It is relatively light, weighing 46 tons, compared to Germany’s Leopard 2 and the United States’ M1 Abrams tanks, which weigh about 60 tons. Initially, it was locally developed with Ukraine’s 6TD-2 liquid-cooled diesel engine capable of 1,200 horsepower and speeds of up to 70 km/h. Pakistan has 2,604 armored vehicles. In artillery, Pakistan possesses 662 self-propelled guns and 2,629 towed artillery pieces. According to Global Firepower, Pakistan also has 600 multiple rocket launcher systems. Pakistan’s Extensive Missile Program Pakistan’s missile program includes cruise missiles, tactical battlefield ballistic missiles, and short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. Its surface-to-surface rocket artillery includes the Fatah-1 and Fatah-2 missiles. Pakistan claims it launched the Fatah-1 missile in May 2025 during a retaliatory operation against India named “Bunyan Marsous.” The Fatah-1 is a modern short-range guided surface-to-surface missile with a range of up to 140 kilometers. The Fatah-2, according to Pakistan’s military media wing (ISPR), has a range of up to 400 kilometers and precision targeting capability. Tactical ballistic missiles include the Hatf-1 and Nasr missiles, capable of striking targets at ranges between 60 and 100 kilometers. Short-range missiles include: Abdali (200 km range) Ghaznavi (300 km) Ra’ad (350 km) Babur (700 km) Shaheen-1 (750 to 1,000 km) Medium-range missiles include: Ghauri-1 (1,500 km) Ghauri-2 (over 2,000 km) Ababeel (2,200 km) Shaheen-2 and Shaheen-3 (2,500–2,750 km) The Ababeel and Shaheen-3 are multiple re-entry vehicle (MRV) missiles designed to overcome ballistic missile defense systems. Experts consider them among Pakistan’s most capable missile systems. According to Dr. Mansoor Ahmed, a strategic and defense studies professor at the Australian National University in Canberra, Ababeel is the first missile in South Asia capable of carrying multiple warheads up to 2,200 kilometers and striking different targets. Pakistan’s Drone Program Pakistan has steadily expanded its arsenal of military drones. It has purchased foreign drones and also developed domestic drone technology capable of surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike missions without pilots. These drones can fly at high altitudes for long durations, conduct surveillance without being detected by radar, monitor troop movements, installations, and military bases, and carry out precision strikes. Locally developed drones include the Shahpar series (1, 2, 3), Burraq, and Uqab. Shahpar-3 is an advanced medium-altitude long-endurance combat drone capable of flying for 30 hours and equipped with missiles. Burraq was Pakistan’s first combat drone, used in 2015 against militants. Uqab is used for tactical purposes such as surveillance and fire correction. Most of these drones are domestically produced, though some components such as engines are imported. Pakistan has also imported advanced drones from Turkey and China, including the Bayraktar TB2, Bayraktar Akinci, and the Chinese CH-4, which are equipped with advanced technology for surveillance, strike missions, and long-range flight. What Is Afghanistan’s Military Strength? The weapons currently in the possession of the Taliban government come from three main sources: equipment from the former Afghan army, weapons left behind by U.S. and foreign forces after withdrawal, and new weapons obtained from various sources. Experts say that recent videos of border clashes suggest Taliban forces primarily used light weapons against Pakistan, with little evidence of heavy or long-range weaponry. Reports by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction and the U.S. Department of Defense indicate that over the past 20 years, more than 1.6 million light and heavy weapons were provided to the former Afghan government. Approximately 70% — over 1 million weapons — ended up in Taliban hands. Current Taliban light weapons include Kalashnikov rifles, American M16 and M4 rifles, M249 light machine guns, PKM heavy machine guns, M240 machine guns, grenade launchers, RPG-7 and AT-4 rocket launchers, and anti-tank missiles. Pentagon reports state that heavy armored vehicles, aircraft, and other equipment supplied to the former Afghan army were also seized by the Taliban. These include 122mm D-30 howitzers — an estimated 100 to 120 still remain in Afghanistan. Other weapons include 155mm howitzers, Russian-made ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns, and older Soviet-era systems. In 2024, the Taliban displayed heavy weapons during a military parade at Bagram Air Base, including Scud (R-17) and Elbrus R-300 missiles with ranges of about 300 kilometers. The Luna missile (also known as Frog-7), Grad rocket launchers, Milan anti-tank missiles, and other launch systems capable of firing up to 35 kilometers were also displayed. These weapons have reportedly not been used for at least three decades. Some are stored in the Ministry of Defense depots and others in mountainous areas such as Panjshir. The Taliban government claims to have reactivated some of these weapons, but their technical condition and combat readiness remain unclear. One major area of Pakistan’s superiority is its air force and modern fighter jets, as the Taliban lack a comparable air force. The Taliban have repaired several helicopters from the former Afghan Ministry of Defense and trained pilots, but their operational readiness remains uncertain. According to Bismillah Taban, a former Afghan Interior Ministry official and security expert, the United States did not fully equip the Afghan Air Force in its final years and destroyed some of its air weapon stockpiles before withdrawal — which is why the Taliban do not have access to air-to-air weapon systems. According to a Pentagon report, aircraft seized by the Taliban include C-208 planes, MD-530 helicopters, Black Hawk helicopters, A-29 aircraft, Mi-17 transport helicopters, Mi-24 attack helicopters, and MD-500 light attack helicopters. The Taliban claim to have approximately 60 aircraft and helicopters. U.S. reports indicate that nearly 61,000 Humvees and Rangers, along with hundreds of armored vehicles, fell into Taliban hands. However, a former Afghan security official noted that rubber tires on some armored vehicles posed challenges during combat. After fighting U.S., NATO, and former Afghan government forces for nearly two decades, the Taliban gained extensive experience in guerrilla warfare. Experts say this remains the backbone of their military strategy. Following border clashes in October 2025, security expert Bismillah Taban said recent videos and observations suggest the Taliban still fight not as a conventional army but as a lightly armed guerrilla force. Their strategy relies on ambush and surprise attacks.
By Real content8 months ago in Chapters
Dragon Horse. Content Warning.
Date: Mono-3, Triakosia To: Helike From: Southern hemisphere, SE How’s it going, loser? My sarge told me it's hotter in the south. I guess they do have ice in their veins. It's like all the fire in the world got trapped below the equator. The sun looks red and the ground has dried up. There are no animals or plants, just dust and rubble. Sometimes there's clouds but even the rain boils. We wear respirators here too because if we don't our lungs will burn. This isn't global warming, it's a global incinerator. When the sun goes down it's the north but even worse even though there's no snow.
By Wen Xiaosheng8 months ago in Chapters
Pakistan–Afghanistan Border Tensions Escalate: Taliban Claims Retaliatory Strikes After Pakistani Airstrikes in Kabul, Kandahar
Taliban government spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid announced in a post on X that Pakistani forces had carried out bombings in parts of Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia. Mr. Mujahid wrote: “Cowardly Pakistani forces bombed several locations in Kabul, Kandahar, and Paktia, but thanks be to God, there were no casualties.” The Taliban government spokesperson also announced the resumption of “large-scale retaliatory operations” against Pakistani military centers. On his X social media account, Zabihullah Mujahid wrote: “Following the airstrikes in Kabul, Kandahar, and other provinces, large-scale retaliatory operations have once again begun against Pakistani military centers along the Kandahar and Helmand axis.” The operation resumed just hours after Pakistani military aircraft targeted several provinces, including Kabul, and eyewitnesses reported hearing multiple explosions following the attacks. Clashes between Pakistani soldiers and Taliban government forces began late Thursday night, with both sides claiming to have inflicted heavy casualties on each other. In a message on X, Mr. Mujahid said the attack was carried out in response to “repeated provocations and violations” by the Pakistani military. Reports from the eastern provinces of Nuristan, Kunar, Nangarhar, and the southeastern provinces of Paktia and Paktika indicate that Taliban government forces attacked Pakistani border guard posts. A military official of the Taliban government in eastern Afghanistan said the attacks began at 8 p.m. local time on Thursday. In a message on the X network, Pakistan’s Ministry of Information wrote: “The Afghan Taliban miscalculated and, without any prior provocation, opened fire at multiple locations along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, to which Pakistani security forces responded immediately and effectively.” Islamabad regularly accuses Kabul of providing safe havens to militants, an allegation the Taliban deny. The escalation comes after Islamabad launched airstrikes inside Afghanistan following several deadly suicide attacks on its territory. The Taliban government said a few days earlier that late-night Pakistani airstrikes killed and injured dozens of people, including women and children. The Taliban condemned the attacks, saying multiple homes and a religious school were targeted. According to the Taliban Ministry of Defense, the Pakistani strikes targeted “civilian areas” in Nangarhar and Paktika provinces. Al Jazeera has also confirmed civilian casualties. The Taliban Ministry of Defense condemned what it called a “blatant violation of Afghanistan’s territorial integrity” and a “clear violation of international law,” warning that “at an appropriate time, these Pakistani attacks will receive an appropriate and severe response.” The Ministry of Defense also stated: “Attacks on civilian targets and religious institutions indicate the failure of the Pakistani military in the fields of intelligence and security.” In this regard, Pakistan said it had targeted seven camps and hideouts allegedly linked to militants near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Pakistani officials said they targeted objectives belonging to Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and ISIS-Khorasan, adding that the strikes were a “retaliatory response” to recent suicide bombings in Pakistan. Pakistan and Afghanistan share a 2,574-kilometer mountainous border. Confirmation from Pakistan regarding airstrikes in Pakistan allegedly carried out by the Afghan Taliban After claims by Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense about airstrikes on various areas of Pakistan, Pakistani authorities confirmed drone incidents in the country. Pakistan’s Minister of Information, Atta Tarar, wrote on Twitter: “(Fitna al-Khawarij) terrorists attempted to launch small drones in Abbottabad, Swabi, and Nowshera.” He said: “The anti-drone system shot down all the drones and there have been no reports of casualties.” He added: “These incidents once again demonstrate the direct link between the Afghan Taliban government and terrorism in Pakistan.” One of the incidents occurred in the Swabi area of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where reports indicate a small drone crashed. Authorities said the drone crashed near a school. Swabi District Police Officer Waqar Rafiq said that although the drone crashed near a residential area, it did not cause significant damage, and it appears the school was not directly targeted. In a post from the official account of the Taliban Ministry of Defense, it was claimed that around 11 p.m. they bombed a military camp near Faizabad in Islamabad, Pakistan, and targeted military camps in Nowshera and Abbottabad. The attacks were said to have successfully hit their targets. The Taliban said these attacks were carried out in response to Pakistan’s airstrikes on Afghan territory.
By Real content8 months ago in Chapters
Afghanistan’s Taliban Penal Code: Hudud, Tazir, and the Expansion of Judicial Powers
In Geneva, the agenda of the 61st annual session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which began today (Thursday, February 27), included the Taliban government’s penal code. The Council’s Commissioner, Volker Türk, referred to the Taliban’s criminal code and the punishments it contains. In the fourth year of its second term in power, the Taliban government issued a “criminal code” that many people inside and outside the country have described as vague and, in some parts, shocking. Taliban officials say the code is fully based on Hanafi jurisprudence, developed in consultation with legal and religious scholars, and that parts and concepts of the law have been reviewed. This criminal code, which consists of an introduction, three chapters, ten sections, and 113 articles, was signed by the head of the Taliban government, Hibatullah Akhundzada, on 15 Jaddi 1404 (Hijri calendar). Taliban government spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said these criminal laws had been applied in Taliban-controlled areas during the 20-year war against the United States and its allies, and that their “new and updated” version is now being implemented based on the same principles. According to Mujahid, the new law prescribes punishments for crimes that fall outside the framework of “Hudud Allah” (fixed divine punishments). The code grants broad powers to judges. Human rights organizations have widely criticized the content of this code. The Difference Between Hudud and Ta’zir A former judge in Kabul explained that in Islamic jurisprudence, “Hudud” or “Hudud Allah” are fixed and predetermined legal punishments that cannot be altered. Examples include the prescribed punishments for murder, adultery, drinking alcohol, highway robbery, and theft. These punishments are called “Hudud” because their type and amount are defined by Sharia. Mujahid says their courts will treat all people equally in cases involving “Hudud Allah” and “Haq al-Abd” (private rights between individuals). However, all other punishments are considered discretionary (ta’zir), meaning the type and amount of punishment vary according to the ruler’s or judge’s opinion and may take into account the defendant’s social character. Punishment Based on Character and Social Status Article 4 of the code states that in the implementation of hudud, qisas (retaliation), and diyah (blood money), only the crime is considered, not the personality of the offender. However, in ta’zir punishments, the “personality of the offender” is taken into account. Article 9 states that punishment is “classified” based on the individual circumstances of the offender: Punishment for scholars and high-ranking officials: a warning from the judge, such as, “I have been informed that you are doing such-and-such.” Punishment for nobles, such as tribal leaders and merchants: being summoned to court and formally notified. Punishment for the middle class: being summoned to court and imprisoned. Punishment for the lower class: threats, beating, and harsher physical punishment. Before the fall of the last republic, Afghanistan’s final Attorney General, Mohammad Farid Hamidi, said that over the past hundred years, modern Afghan laws had considered all citizens equal before the law. He stated that the entire content of this code is open to criticism and fundamentally different from Afghanistan’s prior legislative tradition. He added that such division before the law has no place in Afghanistan’s contemporary legal history and is not consistent with the values of Islam. According to Hamidi, during the time of the Prophet Muhammad and the first caliph, justice was applied equally regardless of status, lineage, social position, or wealth. He said the code appears to be “copied” from well-known jurisprudential books but contradicts the spirit of independent reasoning (ijtihad) in Islamic jurisprudence. The Afghan Penal Code Is More Severe A former Afghan Hanafi jurist and scholar said the code is based on Hanafi jurisprudence and is stricter than the penal code of the former republic. He explained that in Hanafi jurisprudence, ta’zir is left to independent reasoning, public interest, and the ruler’s or judge’s opinion. Differences among individuals are recognized, and judges may determine the type and amount of discretionary punishment based on the defendant’s condition and the public good. According to him, in Hanafi jurisprudence, sometimes advice is more effective for a noble person than lashes, while in other cases lashes may be the only deterrent. Influence of Deobandi Thought Zabihullah Mujahid said that high-ranking individuals in society are not limited to Taliban officials; others also hold social status. If such individuals commit a crime, merely informing them of it may suffice because their social position would prevent them from repeating it. The footnote to Article 9 cites “Fatawa al-Hindiyya,” also known as “Fatawa Alamgiri,” as a source. Afghan researcher Rostam Ali Sirat said this indicates that Taliban scholars are influenced by the Deobandi school of jurisprudence in the Indian subcontinent and that “Fatawa Alamgiri,” written in India in 1667 at the order of Emperor Aurangzeb, had a significant impact on the drafting of the code. Sirat noted that in the Indian subcontinent, converts from lower castes were sometimes referred to as “other Muslims,” while there were also Muslim elites, landlords, and scholars. He added that these issues were deeply influenced by Hindu culture and bore striking similarities to the caste system of that time. Another source cited in Article 9’s footnote is the sixth volume of “Radd al-Muhtar ‘ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar” by Ibn Abidin, a 19th-century Hanafi jurist from Syria. This book is a commentary on “al-Durr al-Mukhtar” by Ala al-Din al-Haskafi and is considered one of the most authoritative sources in Hanafi jurisprudence. “Public Interest” and the Death Penalty Article 14 states that if the death of offenders protects the “public interest,” a judge may issue the death penalty. Examples include persistent corruption, promoting corruption, defending and promoting anti-Islamic beliefs, and practicing sorcery. The second paragraph of Article 14 prescribes the death penalty for homosexuality and repeated theft. Hamidi said that under Afghanistan’s 2017 penal code, death penalty cases were very limited and subject to strict conditions. He argued that under this new code, the authority is granted to judges without specific conditions, disregarding accepted criminal and Islamic jurisprudential principles, and giving them broad discretion to impose the death penalty. Article 4, clause 6, grants authority to individuals—apparently including Taliban Ministry of Public Order officials and ordinary Taliban members—to administer punishment. It states that any Muslim who sees a sinner committing a sin has the authority to discipline them, as part of enjoining good and forbidding evil. Leaving Home, Looking at a Neighbor’s Wife, and Imprisoning Dancers Article 34 prescribes discretionary punishment for a woman who goes to her father’s or other relatives’ home without her husband’s permission. If a woman repeatedly goes to her father’s or relatives’ house without a legitimate reason and stays there, and does not return despite her husband’s request and a judge’s order, both the woman and the person sheltering her are considered offenders and each may be sentenced to three months in prison. Another article states that if a person engages in improper contact with a non-mahram woman (kissing, touching, or embracing), the judge shall sentence them to one year in prison. It also states that looking at a neighbor’s wife, gesturing at her, describing her body parts, or inquiring about her condition is a crime punishable by one month in prison. Article 59 prescribes prison sentences for dancing. Boys and girls who dance, and those who dance with them or watch them, are all considered offenders, and the judge shall sentence each to two months in prison. Mujahid said that a man who fails to provide his wife with her rights—such as housing, food, and clothing—is also punishable. He emphasized that the international community should respect Afghanistan’s laws and not question them, adding that their courts are 100 percent based on Sharia law and cannot incorporate foreign civil laws. He said that those who object to Islamic beliefs and laws have no right to object. Mujahid: “Innovator” Does Not Mean Shi’a
By Real content8 months ago in Chapters
How Power Structures Protect Themselves
In 1949, a book was written titled Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which George Orwell fictionally explained how, in the future, systems and governments would become so powerful that they would prioritize their own power struggles over people’s well-being. And remember, we’re talking about the West, where democracy is considered very mature. According to Orwell, such states never truly end conflicts or wars; one way or another, they keep fear alive among people. If fear remains intact, people stay obedient.
By Ibrahim Shah 8 months ago in Chapters
Albert Einstein: The Genius Who Changed the Universe
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist whose ideas transformed our understanding of the universe. Best known for the theory of relativity and his mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc², Einstein’s work laid the foundation for modern physics. He also made groundbreaking contributions to quantum theory, statistical mechanics, and cosmology. In 1921, he received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, a discovery that would pave the way for quantum mechanics.
By Haroon Pasha8 months ago in Chapters
Ukrainian Soldiers Turn to Sperm Freezing Program as War Threatens Nation’s Future
Maksym has no problem talking about sperm. In fact, he hopes the Ukrainian military will talk more about fertility — or at least take some precautionary measures. “Our men are losing their lives. The Ukrainian gene pool is being destroyed. This is about the survival of our nation,” the soldier said over the phone from a position near the eastern front. The 35-year-old serves in Ukraine’s national army, and this time, while he was on leave, his wife asked him to go to a clinic in Kyiv and provide a sperm sample. Under the veterans affairs program, sperm freezing is free. If Maksym is killed, his wife could still have the child they always wanted using his stored sperm. He says freezing sperm is essential for starting a family under any circumstances. “Whether you’re fighting on the front lines or 30 or 80 kilometers away, there’s no guarantee you’ll be safe,” he says under the constant threat of Russian drones. “That means constant stress, which reduces people’s reproductive capacity. We need to think about the future — about the future of the Ukrainian nation.” Keeping It Frozen Private fertility clinics began offering egg freezing services to men and women serving in the military in 2022, after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Because of the risk of injury or reduced fertility, they were allowed to freeze their sperm and eggs free of charge. That same year, the government took action and provided state funding for the program. “Our soldiers defend the future of the land, but many of them lose their own future, so we want to give them this opportunity,” says MP Oksana Dmytriieva, who helped draft the law. The goal is to help them use their sperm in the future. Initial attempts by politicians to implement the measure sparked public protests. The controversy arose when the initiative required that all samples be destroyed after the donor’s death. The issue came to light when the wife of a fallen soldier tried unsuccessfully to conceive using her deceased husband’s frozen sperm. The law has since been amended so that all soldiers’ sperm samples can be stored free of charge for three years after death, and their partners may use them with written consent. The plan addresses Ukraine’s demographic crisis, which existed even before the Russian invasion and has worsened due to the large number of young, fertile Ukrainian men killed in military operations. Millions of people most of them women have become refugees. Four years have passed, and many still live abroad, as life in Ukraine has not become easier. This reality becomes clear when I meet the MP in a hotel and we are forced to talk without removing our warm coats. This winter, Russia has continuously shelled Ukraine’s power plants, leaving thousands of buildings in Kyiv without heat in freezing temperatures. “We are thinking about the future and all the young people we have lost. We need to compensate for this loss. This is a small step toward improving the demographic situation in the country,” Dmytriieva says. The MP, while visiting the front lines, has encouraged soldiers to speak openly about their sex lives and fertility issues and to consider freezing their sperm. “At first they were embarrassed, but we talked and I told them to tell others and they all came and did it,” she says. “If we can offer them such an opportunity, what’s wrong with taking action? The Sperm Freezing Program The Kyiv State Fertility Treatment Center has been accepting soldiers under the sperm freezing program since January. So far, only dozens have visited, but the center believes more will come once the issue becomes widely discussed. “We have broad demand and high expectations for this program,” says Dr. Oksana Horliukova. Giant chambers resembling dry ice steamers open to reveal long, narrow tubes where sperm is stored. As we walk through quiet corridors, the hidden pain and pressure of war become evident. We hear the cry of a newborn in a cradle and the screams of a woman in labor. Since the war began, the number of pregnant women visiting the clinic has halved. “When women are under stress, their menstrual cycles are disrupted everything is connected,” Dr. Horliukova explains. “About 60% of my patients take antidepressants, including those who have experienced panic attacks due to missile and drone strikes. She says others suffer from “procrastination syndrome,” postponing major life decisions, including having children. Women are afraid of becoming pregnant when they must run to shelters. A Court Decision Ukraine needs new children. But the legal process to support military families has not always been smooth. Katerina Malyshko and her husband Vitaliy had struggled for some time to have children. She believes their natural fertility problems were caused by the war, or at least worsened by it. “All the stressful, sleepless nights every night is another chance because we don’t know whether we will wake up alive the next morning,” Katerina says. The young couple had hoped to celebrate their fourth wedding anniversary this year, perhaps with the birth of a child. Last winter, a fertility clinic had provided them with three embryos, and Katerina was preparing to have them implanted. Then Vitaliy was killed. “He was hit directly by guided bombs, and there was no chance of survival,” Katerina says. She speaks openly about the pain and struggle of living without her husband. Her grief deepened when the clinic announced she was not permitted to continue treatment using the frozen embryos or Vitaliy’s sperm. “They were stored, but I had no right to use them. MP Oksana Dmytriieva has contacted some clinics directly to ensure military families can continue treatment, but she acknowledges that new legislation is needed to resolve such issues. Several amendments are expected to be voted on in the spring. A grieving and frustrated Katerina was forced to go to court, and after nearly six bitter and exhausting months, a judge finally ruled in her favor. “I read the decision and fell to my knees and cried,” Katerina recalls. “It meant so much to my family. I waited so long and endured so much to get it.” “I felt sad and happy at the same time because I had to fight for my rights but I wanted to do it in memory of my husband. Katerina is not yet ready to have a child. She feels too weak. She has no hope that the war will end soon so she can give birth in a peaceful country. When asked about the idea of giving up the land her husband died defending in order to stop further attacks, she responds: “If we retreat now, then why did so many people lose their lives?” Katerina wants to have a child with her husband when she is ready. “I think the children of soldiers who lost their lives in the war deserve the chance to live. They should be able to live in the country their parents died for. Maksym, on the front lines and in constant danger, agrees. “That’s why I decided to freeze my sperm. It’s necessary because maybe tomorrow I’ll suddenly be gone, but my wife can use it — and that at least removes one worry,” he says over the phone. According to Maksym, the biggest problem is persuading men to apply for the program. Kyiv clinic director Oksana Horliukova recalls speaking to a veteran who said soldiers would come to her, cry, and talk about how difficult it had become to have sexual relations with their wives and conceive children. Maksym agrees: “Men keep things inside and don’t express their feelings, but there are many psychological problems.” He suggests it would be better to collect sperm samples when soldiers are deployed, just as DNA samples are taken to identify them if they are killed. The soldier concludes: “There needs to be more discussion about this issue and why it is necessary so that people support it.” “Because usually we men don’t do anything unless you hit us over the head with it and force us.”
By Real content8 months ago in Chapters
