TV stations under government pressure

Minister of information and culture, Abdul Kareem Khuram, has ordered several private TV stations to stop broadcasting popular soap operas that allegedly contains ‘offensive’ scenes. The minister went further by describing offensive as being "un-Islamic". Apparently the ministry reached the decision under pressure from the parliament and clerics.

The Soap Operas are very popular television programs and if any form of formal audience rating was possible in Afghanistan I have no doubt the shows would rate the highest. The serials provide vital revenue for TV stations. The soap operas are dubbed into Pashto and Farsi. Banning the program could be a financial blow to TV stations and the end of the young dubbing sector.

The minister of information warned of sever action against TV station neglecting the decision but did not clarify what. In a freedom liking system the law outlines all sanction in the interest of ensuring consistency and avoiding arbitrary action by those in power. The media law has envisaged no disciplinary measures in this case because the action of the minister is not in the law.

the Parliament has also passed a resolution seeking to bar not the soaps but any TV programme from showing dancing and other practices that are "un-Islamic".

The parliament is a house built by secular west to host radical muslims. This resolution was passed two months after the one which supported the death sentence for Parwez Kambakhsh, a journalist, for downloading an article criticising Islam's stance on women's rights.

The latest action of the parliament and the government once again shows who run the country under the shadow of secular western military. The Afghans can’t do anything which is not endorsed by these fundamentalists. When Islam was introduced there was no TV so we can’t know what islam says about TV and its professional conduct, but now we have to deal with a situation under a bunch of thugs and criminals that anything which has not been covered by Islam becomes the domain of their authority.

The fundamentalist Afghan officials take advantage of western financial assistance and their military protection. They don’t mind to be protected from the ruthless hand of Taliban by westerners. They live in modern buildings and drive in convoys which are paid by western tax payer money but their black moral framework has not changed.

The fundamentalist for decades enforced a restrictive system where basic human curiosity has been seriously curtailed. Any new step by an Afghan is rejected in their view on the ground that its unfamiliar and not in line with Islam. The islam of fundamentalists is a static faith; their faith will never accept innovative television programs because television is a threat to their authority and better television is even serious threat.

Why are we silent, and by ‘we’ I mean all of us: people of Afghanistan, millions of Afghans watch these soap operas and they love it. they need to stand up for something they like and challenge the authority of the criminal fundamentalists. We know that these criminals should be put behind bars not on a chair to govern our lives again. Their actions once again remind us that they never went through a period of self-reflection after their atrocities. The fundamentalists should not dictate to the entire Afghan society the rule of the game, they have had enough control. The rule of law should replace the arbitrary interpretation of their Islam.

These fundamentalists call for the murder of an innocent person for reading a piece and we know that not only democratic society but any humane society condemns the murder of a person for freedom of thought.

But I know that the mass (all and any Afghan) will remain quiet because We are a society caught in a mental cramp of cognitive dissonance, and we will be for a long time. The whole society fall victim to this type of Islam. Nobody can raise their voice because that would be considered unislamic, the mantra of the criminal fundamentalists has worked so well that Afghans are fearful of natural pursuit of life and watching what makes them happy.

اعلامیه اتحادیه ملی ژورنالیستان افغانستان در مورد تهدید به قتل اعظم رهنورد زریاب

در حالی که دو هفته از تهدید به قتل اعظم رهنورد زریاب، مشاور ارشد اتحادیه ملی ژورنالیستان افغانستان و نویسنده شهیر کشور می گذرد، هنوز نهاد های امنیتی، هیچ گزارشی در مورد عاملین این تهدید نداده اند.

اتحادیه ملی ژورنالیستان افغانستان در حالی که اقدام ریاست امنیت ملی برای تامین امنیت جانی آقای زریاب را قابل تقدیر می داند، تذکر چند نکته را ضروری می پندارد.

نخست این که چرا با وجود در خواست های رسمی این اتحادیه از وزارت امور داخله و ریاست امنیت ملی، هنوز اقدام محسوسی در جهت رد یابی عاملین سؤ قصد بر جان آقای زریاب، صورت نگرفته است.

دوم این که اتحادیه ملی ژورنالیستان افغانستان قبلا به نهاد های امنیتی و وزارت اطلاعات و فرهنگ شکایت کرده است که فردی به نام فرهنگپال در شماره 26 حوت جریده پلوشه آقای زریاب را .واضحا تهدید کرده است. با این حال هیچ کدام از این نهاد ها در زمینه شناسایی این فرد و انجام تحقیقات از وی اقدامی نکرده اند.

اتحادیه ملی ژورنالیستان افغانستان یک بار دیگر از این نهاد ها می طلبد که در زمینه شناسایی و تحقیق از فردی به نام فرهنگپال، اقدامات سریع و عملی نمایند.

اتحادیه ملی ژورنالیستان افغانستان با اغتنام از فرصت، مراتب امتنان خود را از حکم معاون دوم رییس جمهور مبنی بر نام گذاری یک جاده به نام "جاده شهید اجمل نقشبندی" ابراز می دارد.

ما اقدام وزارت اطلاعات و فرهنگ مبنی بر نام گذاری یک جایزه رسانه یی به نام اجمل نقشبندی را نیز قابل تقدیر می دانیم

Nato fires artillery shells at $150000 a round

The US and Canadian armies in Afghanistan are now using GPS-guided artillery shells at the cost of $150,000 a round. This is the most conventional artillery shell or as a matter of that the most expensive conventional ammunition ever fired by the armies.

In 2004 I met a mercenary working for Dyncorp in Kabul. The man came from Texas and had very little idea of the world, the man argued that the western armies are in Afghanistan to test their weapon systems. He continued, US army spends billions on training and weapon systems; Afghanistan is the best place to put the training in practice and use the weapons. At that time, I laughed at the man. I couldn’t take his serious because he was lacking information about most of the subjects he was talking about. This discredited his mentioned argument.

Four years on I realised that the man was right to some extent. The use of weapons like this makes one think that NATO is testing their weapon systems. The US and Canadian armies for the first time purchased some experimental shells to go along with its brand new 155-millimetre M-777 howitzers. The Excalibur shell uses satellite signals and software to guide it to within 10 metres of its intended target, even when fired from up to 40 kilometres away.

The diverse climatic and geographical condition of Afghanistan suits the introduction of GPS-guided artillery shells; western armies can test shell's performance under different weather and terrain. Live targets, such as Taliban insurgents, serve to identify the vulnerability of the weapon system. By firing at Taliban NATO can see if any counter-measures such as jamming GPS signals of the shell could take place. The question of whether the Excalibur has been led astray by sophisticated interference technology is still something both the army and defence industry officials are reluctant to address.


I wonder what happened to armament critics and activists. The cost of a single shell equals around 7 school buildings or changing teaching curriculum for grade three, which still refers to the presence of foreign forces as Soviet occupiers or the Red Army. Over four million kids in Afghanistan are studying in open air.

Afghanistan doesn’t benefit from this war, contractors like Raytheon pockets the money. Raytheon is the defence contractor which developed Excalibur. The more scared NATO is the more they use expensive weaponry and that means less money for reconstruction. A new study by ACBAR has found out that more than 60% of the international fun allocate for assisting Afghanistan reconstruction goes to western cooperates. the report adds that reconstruction assistance is a fraction of military spending. Since 2001 the United States has appropriated $127 billion for the war in Afghanistan and the US military is currently spending nearly $100 million a day in the country, some $36 billion a year. Yet the average volume of international aid provided by all donors since 2001 is woefully inadequate at just $7 million per day.

UK to send judges for Sharia training to the Taliban

Recently the Anglican Church [Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams] expressed that there was nothing wrong with the British legal system adopting some laws from Islamic shari'a and implementing them for British citizens of the Islamic faith.

The UK and the rest of civilized world has been accused of hypocrisy before in their support of regimes such as Karzai in Afghanistan which is implementing Sharia law, the entire legal system of Afghanistan is based around Sharia. This comes contrary to any human right value and the secular notions which exist in UK and Europe. an Islamic system include shari'a criminal law – that is, punishments such as killing the apostate (a Muslim who converts to another religion), amputating a thief's hand, cutting off a brigand's opposing hand and foot... stoning the adulterer to death, publicly flogging wine drinkers, killing homosexuals by throwing them from a high place, or allowing a relative of a [murder] victim to deal with the murderer, instead of the state. This is the system supported by UK in Afghanistan but Archbishop of Canterbury want to introduce it in Europe. This is the first time a high ranking religious figure in Europe expresses support for Sharia inside Europe. An Islamic legal system in Europe as suggest by Anglican Church would mean:

"1) Permit polygamy for European Muslim citizens, and not punish them for it – even though this is considered criminal under European law;

"2) Permit European Muslim citizens to beat their wives to discipline them, as the Koran urges;

"3) Allow men to unilaterally decide to divorce without requiring any court proceedings, as this is a right guaranteed to men by shari'a;

"4) Give daughters only half the inheritance rights that sons have, while widows receive only an eighth of the inheritance;

"5) Not consider women's testimony the equal of men's in shari'a courts;

"6) Deprive a divorced woman of custody of her children if she remarries;

"7) Allow European Muslim citizens to marry in traditional marriages without the need to officially register these marriages;

"8) Eliminate adoption, since it is contrary to shari'a;

"9) Force a woman whose Muslim husband converts to another religion to divorce him, because he is an apostate;

"10) Prevent European Muslim women from marrying non-Muslims…"

European countries will never accede to these catastrophic demands, for reasons more practical than humanist. If so, why does the statement of the Anglican Church matter? the fact that they were proposed by the British archbishop sends the wrong message to the Islamic world. The gist of this message is that there is no contradiction between Islamic shari'a and Western civilization if shari'a applies only for Muslim citizens. To absolve itself of responsibility in the eyes of fundamentalist Muslims, who will be persuaded by the Church's statements that the clash is not between Christians and their Church on the one hand and Muslims on the other but a clash between Muslims and the secular states. This will create greater hostility among Muslim citizens of European countries to their host countries, and will lead to increased violence and terrorism in the future…

These statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury also mean that the Church – or at least part of it – still does not believe in human rights legislation, and takes every opportunity to cast doubt on the universality and comprehensiveness of the humanist principles.

Although the demands announced by the bishop are far from implementation in a Europe that long ago distanced itself from medieval values and thought, the reverberations of these demands will have a grave impact on the Islamic world. fundamentalist in places like Afghanistan are picking fights with the liberals who can’t dare to oppose sharia openly, and their attitude is: 'How can you oppose shari'a law in your own countries when we see that the Anglican Church is seeking its implementation in Europe?'

more about this topic in the Arab liberal e-journal Elaph.